JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. 1. Though the Petitioner has failed in both the Courts, I am of the opinion that he has to succeed in this revision petition on one of the grounds for eviction pleaded by him, namely, the premises are bona fide required by the Petitioner for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction after demolition of the present structure. The Petitioner had also pleaded that the building had become very old and unsafe and unfit for human habitation The other two grounds raised by him were that without consent of the Petitioner, the tenant had carried out certain alterations to the building, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the same and that the tenant was using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. 2. Both the Courts have held against him on all the grounds and I do not find any merit in the revision petition with regard to three grounds, namely, the building being unfit for human habitation, the building having been materially altered so as to impair its value and that the building- being used by the tenant for a different purpose. 3. However, both the Courts have mis directed themselves while considering the case of the Petitioner that he requires the building bona fide for the purpose of demolishing the same and reconstructing it. While dealing with this ground, the Courts below have chosen to take into consideration the case of the landlord that it was unfair for human habitation and having rejected that case earlier proceeded to hold that this ground is also not available to the landlord. That is the basic mistake committed by both the Courts, 4. The Rent Controller has stated in his order that the landlord had got the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation Shimla for reconstruction and also brought evidence on record to prove that he has sufficient funds to carry out the proposed re-construction. That is the basic mistake committed by both the Courts, 4. The Rent Controller has stated in his order that the landlord had got the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation Shimla for reconstruction and also brought evidence on record to prove that he has sufficient funds to carry out the proposed re-construction. But the Rent Controller has not given any weight to the same for the reason that the building was in a condition fit for habitation According to the Rent Controller, that negatives the bona fides of the claim of the landlord I am unable to appreciate as to how the fitness of the building for human habitation could be taken as a factor negativing the bona fide of the claim of the landlord for the purpose of demolishing the building and re constructing the same No doubt, it may be a piece of evidence if the building is in such a condition that it requires demolition, but the statutory provision in Section 14(3)(c) does not make it a condition precedent There are two independent grounds in the said section. One ground is that the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and Anr. ground is that it is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of demolition and re-building If one of the grounds is not proved, it does not mean that Anr. ground cannot be accepted The two grounds cm be proved independently and at the same time the two grounds can be proved jointly also for the purpose of proving that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction bona fide It is possible for the landlord to show that it has become unfit for human habitation and that is why it is required for demolition, but that does not preclude the landlord from proving independently of the condition of the building that he requires bona fide the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. 5. In this case I have referred to the way in which the Rent Controller has appreciated the matter The Appellate Authority has gone one step further. 5. In this case I have referred to the way in which the Rent Controller has appreciated the matter The Appellate Authority has gone one step further. While referring to the evidence regarding the funds possessed by the landlord to show that he has got (sic) means to demolish the building and reconstruct a new one, the Appellate Authority has also found that the documents produced by him, namely, Indira Vikas patras have come in existence only after the filing of the petition and they could not be taken as acceptable evidence The Appellate Authority has chosen observe that the source of such funds has not been proved by the landlord The Appellate Authority has obviously forgotten that she is not functioning under the Income Tax Act, but she is functioning only as Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Himachal Pridesh Urban Rent Control Act. It is for her only to see whether the landlord is possessed of sufficient funds It is not for her to say that the source of such funds must also be proved. 6. There also no merit in the reasoning of the Appellate Authority that Indira Vikas Patras having been obtained after the filing of the petition, they should be ignored It is certainly open to the landlord to convert his cash into Indira Vikas Patras or any other security during the pendency of the proceeding. It does not mean that he had no cash whatever before the filing of the petition. In fact, it is to be noted at this stage that there is no averment in the reply filed by the tenant to the petition for eviction that the landlord was not possessed of sufficient funds Learned Counsel for the tenant contends that there is no specific plea by the landlord that he is having funds and then only there could have been a denial by the tenant I am unable to accept this contention. In paragraph 18 (a) (2) of the petition the ground set out is that the premises are required bona fide by the Petitioner for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction, after demolition of the present structure, which has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or is in a dangerous condition. In paragraph 18 (a) (2) of the petition the ground set out is that the premises are required bona fide by the Petitioner for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction, after demolition of the present structure, which has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or is in a dangerous condition. It is added that a plan for the said purpose has been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and the Director of Himachal Pradesh Town and Country planning, Shimla, In reply to this, the tenant has only stated as follows: It is denied that the premises are required by the Petitioner, for purposes of rebuilding or reconstruction, after demolition of the present structure or that the same has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or is in a dangeous condition It is denied that any plan has been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation or the Director, H.P. Town and Country Planning, Shimla. 7. When the tenant has chosen to set out his case regarding the plan obtained by the landlord, he could have very well stated that the landlord has no funds to effect demolition and reconstruction. If such a plea had been raised the landlord could have proved that he had funds even long before the filing of the petition. But in this case there is sufficient evidence to show that the landlord has enough funds to effect demolition and reconstruction. 8. Nothing has been elicited by the tenant in the cross-examination of the landlord that his requirement is not bona fide. The landlord has examined himself and also an expert to prove that the building requires demolition It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether the building is in such a condition as to require immediate demolition as it has been dealt with in a separate ground under the provisions of the Act. Suffice it for me to hold that there is enough evidence on the part of the landlord to prove his bona fides. It is then contended that the landlord has neither pleaded nor proved that the repairs of the building cannot be carried out without the tenant being evicted There is an express statement by PW-2 examined by the landlord that the work cannot be carried out unless the tenant is evicted from the premises There is sufficient evidence on record to that effect. 9. 9. Even the pleading is sufficient, in my opinion, when the first ground on which eviction is sought is to the effect that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the second ground is for demolishing the same and reconstructing a new building, then there is no point in saying that the landlord should expressly state that the work cannot be carried out without the tenant being evicted. The pleading can certainly be construed as one contemplated by Sub-section (c). In my opinion, this pleading is sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirement of sub section. 10. The Appellate Authority has not given any other reason for disbelieving the case of the landlord. The Appellate Authority has also Observed that the landlord has not pleaded that he wants to re-construct the building as the other buildings in the vicinity are being reconstructed or that he can put the premises to a more profitable use. I am unable to appreciate this observation of the Appellate Authority There is no such requirement in the provisions of the section or the Act. It is enough if the landlord proves that he is buna fide requiring the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction It is not necessary for him to say that the other buildings in the locality are being demolished or reconstructed. That may be a piece of evidence if all and it is not a condition precedent for granting the order of eviction. 11. It is contended by learned Counsel for the Respondents that there are two adjacent buildings having common walls and if the present building is demolished, it will cause damage to the other buildings and the owners of the adjacent buildings will raise objection to the demolition. That is a matter entirely between the landlord and the adjacent owners and. it is not a matter on the basis of which the tenant can resist the petition for eviction. 12. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the findings of the Courts below on this question are vitiated and unsustainable. Consequently, these findings are set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The petition for eviction is ordered on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction after demolition of the present structure. There will be no order as to costs.