JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J.— Petition filed by the landlords agaisnt the tenants in respect of three shops stands allowed by the Rent Controller, Kangra. The tenants have been directed to hand over vacant possession of the shops in their occupation. A further direction has been handed down that the landlords after reconstruction of the building shall offer one shop to each of the tenants on the market rent prevalent at that time so that no prejudice is caused to the tenants by vacation of the demised premises and if, the landlords do not do so, the tenants may resort to the provisions contained in Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 14 of the Act. The appeal filed by the tenants before the appellate authority stands dismissed and the tenants are in revision petition before this Court. Parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as the landlords and the tenants. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the tenants Shri K.D. Sood with Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala is at pains to contend that the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as appellate authority are liable to be set aside as the landlords have not been able to establish the grounds on which the ejectment of the tenants was sought. 3. Mr. Sood further proceeds to contend that the shops in question have not gone dangerous or dilapidated so as to endanger human life. It is further stated that the shops are quite in a good condition and the claim made by the landlords is mala fide and is aimed at enhancing the rent and is being used as a pressure tactic. 4. Mr. Sood further contends that one ejectment petition could not be filed against the three tenants in respect of three different shops and for that purpose the impugned judgments are liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the landlords in reply has adopted the same reasoning which stands projected by the courts below in the impugned judgments. Mr. Gupta further states that the every piece of evidence placed on record has been correctly appreciated by both the courts below and concurrent finding has been recorded which is not open to challenge in the revision petition by this Court. Mr. Gupta further states that the every piece of evidence placed on record has been correctly appreciated by both the courts below and concurrent finding has been recorded which is not open to challenge in the revision petition by this Court. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after scanning the record and the impugned judgments, I find there is no merit in this revision petition. 6. The ejectment of the tenants was sought in respect of three shops bearing Nos. 668/1, 668/3 and 668/4. These shops are situated in the town of Kangra. It is not disputed that the Municipal Committee served a notice on the landlords requiring them to demolish the building as the same is in a ruinous state and has become dangerous to the passers-by as well as the general public of the bazar. The tenants were required to pull down/demolish the building immediately failing which action shall proceed under the Act. This notice has been proved on record as Ex. PWI/C and was issued by the president of the Municipal Committee. This notice is further based on the report of the Junior Engineer of the Committee who had reported that the building had become dangerous and was likely to crumble down at any time. PW-1 a clerk of the Municipal Committee has appeared to prove this notice. The District Magistrate has also given details of the dilapidated condition of the shops while appearing as his own witness as PW-3: PW-4 is a contractor who has examined the premises in question and has given details of the condition. It is not denied that under the provisions contained in Section 14(3) (c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 the ejectment of the tenants can be sought when the building has become unfit or unsafe for human habitation. The building can further be got vacated by the landlords for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. The building can further be got vacated by the tenants, if so required bonafide by the landlords for the purposes of building or re-building or for any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or additions or alterations cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. The building can further be got vacated by the tenants, if so required bonafide by the landlords for the purposes of building or re-building or for any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or additions or alterations cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. A reading of this provision thus makes it sufficiently clear that the ejectment of the tenants can be sought on any these grounds besides other grounds given in the section. Each ground is distinct and separate for the purpose of seeking ejectment of the tenants. There is evidence on record where witnesses examined by the tenants have admitted the building to be in bad shape. It is in their statements that the building has developed cracks and is built with kacha structure. It has further come in evidence that these shops are the oldest construction in the town of Kangra. 7. Though the tenants in reply to the petition have stated that the building is not unsafe or unfit for human habitation nor the same is required for rebuilding or re-construction by the landlords and the petition has been moved with ulterior motive to enhance rent but no evidence worth taking notice of has been placed on record by them. 8. It has been stated by them in the reply that the landlords neglected in making suitable repairs with a view to seek their ejectment. In case this was so, the tenants could have moved petition before the Rent Controller with the prayer to direct the landlords to carry out necessary repairs of the demised premises. This course was never adopted by them. 9. Surinder Kumar who has appeared as PW-1 besides proving the notice referred to above has further made a statement which is based on personal knowledge that the building is very old and its condition is dangerous. 10. The statute has given a right to the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant when the building is bonafide required for the purposes of building, re-building or for the purposes of additions and alterations. 11. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the ground taken by the landlords is mala fide or the ejectment of the tenants is being sought on wholly frivolous allegations. It has come on record that the demised premises are constructed of kacha bricks. Slates of the roof have broken down. 11. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the ground taken by the landlords is mala fide or the ejectment of the tenants is being sought on wholly frivolous allegations. It has come on record that the demised premises are constructed of kacha bricks. Slates of the roof have broken down. Wooden planks of the roofs have given way and are in a rotten shape. 12. The building has further been proved to have developed cracks as the walls are not plastered. Even the kacha bricks which were used for the purpose of construction are in the damaged shape. 13. The landlords in their statements have stated on oath that it is desired to re-construct the building with pucca structure of concrete and cement as all the buildings in the neighbourhood have been converted into pucca structure. 14. The landlords have proved on record that they have sufficient means for the purpose of re-construction of the building. Bank accounts, balance-sheets have been placed as Ex. PW3/F, Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/H. One of the landlords is the Manager in the Bank earning Rs. 7,000 p.m. One of the landlords is doing business and is stated to be earning Rs. 10,000 p.m. Another landlord is drawing Rs. 3,500 p.m. and is an employee of the Public Works Department. Other landlords are also drawing Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 3,500 p.m. The wife of one of the landlords is also an employee and is earning Rs. 3,000 p.m. The landlords have thus placed on record to show that they have an amount of Rs. 4.64 lacs in their hands. Building plans have been got sanctioned by them and have been placed on record as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. 15. it has further come on record that there are total four shops and three shops are in occupation of the tenants in this litigation. The fourth shop is stated to be closed. Om Parkash, contractor examined as PW-4 has stated that the building exists prior to his birth. He has given his age to be 60 years. Inder Pal examined by the tenants as PW-1 has admitted the building to be 45 years old. He has further admitted that the walls are of kacha bricks and that there is no plaster in the walls inside or outside. He has given his age to be 60 years. Inder Pal examined by the tenants as PW-1 has admitted the building to be 45 years old. He has further admitted that the walls are of kacha bricks and that there is no plaster in the walls inside or outside. The other witnesses examined by the tenants are Krishan Lai examined as RW-4 and Chaman Lai who has been examined as RW-5 have admitted the building to be one of the oldest building in the town of Kangra. 16. A perusal of the evidence thus goes to establish that the building is in really bad shape and endangers human life. The landlords have further proved their bona fide desired to re-construct the premises for which they have sufficient funds. It has further come on record that the re-construction is not possible without the building being vacated form its existing tenants. The very fact that the fourth shop is lying vacant and closed would be another factor to establish that in case the building was sound that shop could have been rented out by the landlords to someone. 17. The other argument raised by Mr. Sood that a joint petition could not be filed against the three tenants in respect of three different shops is also without any force. It is not denied that all the three shops are situated in Khasra No. 668 simply because their tenancy is different it would not affect the moving of a joint petition as the ejectment of the tenants is based on one and the same cause of action. The question being raised in the pleadings of the parties are also common on law as well as facts. The shops are contiguous to each other and comprise one building. Out of it different portions have been occupied so as to make three or four shops. 18. On analysis, I find that the judgments passed by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority are based on correct appreciation of evidence and relevant provisions of law have also been properly appreciated. The impugned judgments thus do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety or error of judgment. There is thus no scope for interference by this Court in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgments thus do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety or error of judgment. There is thus no scope for interference by this Court in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Tenants are, however, granted a period of three months from today to vacate the premises provided they tender up to date arrears of rent with statutory interest within three weeks from today. This shall include the amount for use and occupation for the period of three months which is being granted by this court. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed.