JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This is tenants revision against the order passed by Shri Janeshwar Goyal, Appellate Authority-1, Sirmour District at Nahan. By means of impugned judgment dated 2-7-1996 in Rent Appeal No. 13-N/14 of 1994, the appellate authority below has upheld the order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller II, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour in Rent Petition No. 3/2 of 1993 dated 27-10-1994. 2. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) had filed an ejectment petition under section 14 (3) (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the premises (shop) in question is in a very old condition/construction, roof whereof is not pukka one and it rests on the wooden rafters, the walls of the shop were also of ‘kachha nature and the floor of the shop is on higher level than the floor of the shops in the vicinity, as such the premises were bona fide required by her for reconstruction/construction which cannot be carried out without ejectment of the tenant. The respondent was stated to be in arrears of rent of the premises in question from the date of its purchase i. e. 24-12-1991 and rent at the rate of Rs. 200 p. m. total arrears amounting to Rs. 3,380 was claimed. 3. This petition was resisted and contested by the tenant who pleaded that the rent was initially Rs. 100 but was increased upto Rs. 190 and thus, it was pleaded that the rent is Rs. 190 and not as claimed by the Landlady in respect of the premises in question. Plea of the petitioner regarding the requirement of the premises for bona fide construction/reconstruction was also repudiated and it was further pleaded that since the premises are non-residential, as such the plea of bona fide requirement is not open to the Landlady under the Act It was further pleaded that the petition is mala fide and the construction/reconstruction can be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. Regarding rent, it was pleaded that the Landlady herself had refused to accept the rent, not only this, but she had also got the electricity supply disconnected to the premises in question with a view to pressurise the tenant to vacate the premises in question. Regarding rent, it was pleaded that the Landlady herself had refused to accept the rent, not only this, but she had also got the electricity supply disconnected to the premises in question with a view to pressurise the tenant to vacate the premises in question. Another ground pleaded was that the present petition is not maintainable, as the previous Landlady—Krishna had filed petition for ejectment which was dismissed on 30-12-1989 and thus, the petition is hit by the principles of res judicata in view of the bar of section 18 under the Act. In the rejoinder filed by the Landlady, the case set up by the tenant was controverted and the pleas raised in the ejectment petitioner were reiterated The premises in question are identified bearing shop No. 72 (1), situate in Ward No. 6 at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. 4. In the aforesaid background, the parties went to trial on the following issues :— 1. Whether the premises in question is required for the bona fide requirement of reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the ejectment of the respondent ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the rent of the premises in question is Rs. 200 per month ? OPP 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the increase in rent as prayed for ? OPP 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR 6. Whether the petition is hit by principle of res judicata ? OPR 7. Relief. Issues No. 1, 2 and 4 were held in favour of the Landlady and issues No. 5 and 6 were held against respondent, under issue No. 39 it was held that the rate of rent of the premises is Rs. OPR 6. Whether the petition is hit by principle of res judicata ? OPR 7. Relief. Issues No. 1, 2 and 4 were held in favour of the Landlady and issues No. 5 and 6 were held against respondent, under issue No. 39 it was held that the rate of rent of the premises is Rs. 190 and the respondent is in arrears of rent w. e. f. 1-1-1992 to September 1994 and it was further observed under this issue that w. e. f. January 1994 the rent was liable to be increased to Rs 209 p. m. While granting relief under issue No. 7, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered on the ground of reconstruction as well as on the ground of arrears of rent, and at the same time, it was ordered that the arrears of rent in terms of the order were liable to be deducted out of Rs 3,610 which were paid by the tenant who was also held liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the balance amount It was further ordered that in case of default in payment of arrears of rent within the stipulated period (which is 30 days under the Act), the tenant was also liable for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. 5. The order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was assailed by the tenant before the appellate authority below, where he also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 for leading additional evidence on two grounds, namely, that during the pendency of the appeal,, the husband of the Landlady had left Paonta and settled at Jagadhri where he is running shop under the name of Raj Kumar Praveen Kumar and after institution of the rent petition H P. Town and Country Planning Act has been made applicable to the Paonta Sahib and a map is required to be approved by the authorities of the Town and Country Planning, According to the tenant, these subsequent events were required to be brought on record which constituted substantial cause and were likely to effect the decision of the appeal. This application was contested and resisted by the Landlady. In reply, it was pleaded by her that husband of the tenant had taken a shop on rent at Paonta Sahib. This application was contested and resisted by the Landlady. In reply, it was pleaded by her that husband of the tenant had taken a shop on rent at Paonta Sahib. However, on being compelled by the Landlord to vacate the same, he vacated it and in these circumstances in order to make livelihood, her husband shifted to Jagadhri where he started doing his business which shifting is of temporary nature and it was further pleaded in this behalf that going to Jagadhri would not effect the bonafide requirement for reconstruction as she would undertake the work in hand as soon as the premises are vacated by the tenant, Regarding the applicability of the H. P. Town and Country Planning Act, there was no specific denial. The appellate authority below after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal thereby holding the order of ejectment passed against the tenant and in favour of the Landlady. 6. So far the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent is concerned, that no more exists as it was conceded at the time of hearing that so far arrears of rent are concerned, those have been paid by the tenant as such the only ground of ejectment that subsists is of construction/reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the tenants vacating the premises in question which ground has been found by both the authorities below in favour of the Landlady. 7. Shri Sharwan Dogra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant, has attacked the ejectment order against his client by submitting that no bonafide of the Landlady is made out from the evidence on record as also from sequence of facts to show muchless prove the so called bona fide. According to Shri Dogra, the petition was hit by section 18 of the Act in view of the earlier decision Ex. R 2 whereby the ejectment petition filed by the predecessor-in-title of the Landlady was dismissed. In support of the revision petition, it was farther urged that the attending laws applicable on the date of reconstruction/construction are to govern the new construction, as such in the absence of sanction by the Town and Country Planning Authorities, the Landlady cannot undertake reconstruction/construction of the premises. In support of the revision petition, it was farther urged that the attending laws applicable on the date of reconstruction/construction are to govern the new construction, as such in the absence of sanction by the Town and Country Planning Authorities, the Landlady cannot undertake reconstruction/construction of the premises. By referring to the plea raised in the application of the tenant under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code tiled before the lower appellate authority, it was urged that since the petitioners husband with whom she is residing, has shifted lock, stock and barrel to Jagadhri where he is running his own business, this is an additional circumstance to defeat the claim of the Landlady. Shri Dogra has also referred to the statements of RW 1 Amarjeet, PW 2 tenant of the adjoining shop and RW 3 Jaswant Singh and according to him, even if the Landlady succeeds, then after reconstruction the premises deserves to be given back on rent to his client Rent legislation being a beneficent enactment aimed at checking the unscrupulous landlords to throw out the poor tenants, so far as possible it should be titled in favour of the tenant. 8. In order to advance his submissions, Shri Dogra has placed reliance on certain decided cases which are 1983 (2) RCR 251, Nawab Ali v. Smt Hira Devi; AIR 1963 SC 499, Neta Ram and others v. Jiwan Lal and another ; AIR 1971 SC 942, M/s. Panchmal Narayana Shenoy v, Basthi Ven- katesha Shenoy and 1979 (2) RCR 239, Metalware and Co. v Bansilal Sharma. Thus, on these basis Shri Dogra has urged for allowing the revision petition and consequently setting aside the order of ejectment passed by both the authorities under this Act against his cheat and in favour of the Landlady. v Bansilal Sharma. Thus, on these basis Shri Dogra has urged for allowing the revision petition and consequently setting aside the order of ejectment passed by both the authorities under this Act against his cheat and in favour of the Landlady. On the other hand, Shri Kanwar while contraverting the submissions made on behalf of the tenant, has urged that his client has been able to establish bona fide inasmuch as that she got the building plan sanctioned in accordance with law, she has demonstrated her adequate financial resources required for reconstruction/construction of the premises after those are vacated and further it was urged that even if sanction under the Municipal and H P. Town and Country Planning Act are required to be taken, this is not a condition precedent for ordering ejectment of the respondent under the Act This plea was further extended by pointing out that sanction for carrying out building work accorded by Municipal and Town and Country Planning, Authorities are for limited purpose and in the case by the Town Planning Authorities only one extension is permissible under section 34 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act. As such in case, the sanction of Town and Planning Authorities was there, it would have been of no consequence as on account of pendency of litigation that would have lapsed. In this case ejectment petition was presented in the court of Rent Controller below on 18-5-1993 and more than 3 years have lapsed but the matter is still pending. and even the sanction accorded by the Municipal authorities shall have to be got revalidated/renewed/extended. As such, it was pointed out that even if the permission was there, that would not have been of any consequence because it would have lapsed In any event it was pointed out by Shri Kanwar that his client would carry out the construction in accordance with law but that cannot be made the basis for non-suiting his client. Lastly, it was urged that the findings recorded by both the authorities under the Act are concurrent findings of fact based on due and proper appreciation of evidence as such, this court is not exercising the powers of an appellate authority under section 24 of the Act and nor this court would act as second court of appeal. Lastly, it was urged that the findings recorded by both the authorities under the Act are concurrent findings of fact based on due and proper appreciation of evidence as such, this court is not exercising the powers of an appellate authority under section 24 of the Act and nor this court would act as second court of appeal. It was further pointed out on behalf of the Landlady that neither any illegality nor impropriety has been pointed out on behalf of the tenant so as to call upon this court to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below, In support of his submissions, Shri Kanwar has placed reliance on decided cases viz, decision of this court in CR 103 of 1995, Central Cooperative Consumers Store v. Satwant Singh ; 1992 (1) RCR 411, Nizzar Rawther v Varghese Mathew ; 1994 (2) RCR 236, K. S. Sundararaju Chettiar v. M R. Ramachandra Naidu ; 1994 (2) RCR 514, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satwant Singh Kochhar ; 1993 (I) SCC 499, Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others and AIR 1996 SC 510, Dev Kumar (died) through L. Rs. v Smt. Swaran Lata and others, and has thus prayed for dismissal of the present revision petition. In order to properly appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to look into the evidence produced by the parties before the Rent Controller below. 9. PW 1 is the Landlady, who has pledged her oath and has stated that the premises in question are purchased by her on 24th December, 1991 and the area of the premises as 22 feet x 12 feet and its walls are in mud-plaster and the roof has wooden rafters whereon soil is put. Foundation is also kachha and the level of the shop is 2 feet above the ground level. She has further stated that there is no passage to go on to the roof, whereas on 3 sides of the premises in question there are shops of other persons and on the 4th side there is bazar. According to her, she intends to reconstruct the shop after demolishing the same thereby providing a stair case for going to the upper storeys and she further intends to raise two more storeys on the shop in question. She has placed on record letter Ex. According to her, she intends to reconstruct the shop after demolishing the same thereby providing a stair case for going to the upper storeys and she further intends to raise two more storeys on the shop in question. She has placed on record letter Ex. PA issued by the Municipal authorities according sanction and the plan mark "A” which was later on exhibited as Ex. PA/1 and Ex PA/2 which have been duly proved as per statement of Secretary, Municipal Committee Paonta Sahib, PW 2. 10. PW 3 is Sanjay Aggarwal, who has proved that the proposed construction cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated and for the purposes of raising two storeys on the shop, provision has to be made for stairs, as such the premises were required to be vacated. 11. PW 5 is Atul Kumar who has proved that in his company, the husband of the Landlady has got shares of the value of Rs. 60,000, besides this amount, the said husband of the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000 with the said company and this amount is repayable by the company on a weeks notice. He has placed on record copies of the annual return of the company as well as of the ledger. PW 5 is Praveen Kumar, husband of the Landlady, who has also supported the case of his wife and described the resources available with them for reconstruction of the premises. 12. On the other hand, the respondent has appeared as RW 1 and has tried to make out a case that since the walls are joint, as such it is not possible to carry out reconstruction/construction as proposed by the Landlady and has further tried to defeat her claim RW 2 is Ratnesh Lal-tenant of the adjoining shop, who has stated that since the wall between the premises of the Landlady and the one occupied by him is common, as such the reconstruction cannot be carried out. He has gone on record to say that the condition of the building of the tenant is good and its walls are solid. There is no crack either in any of the walls or in the roof. In case the tenanted premises of the tenant are demolished, his premises are likely to be effected. He further says that the level of the premises in question is about 1-1/2 feet. There is no crack either in any of the walls or in the roof. In case the tenanted premises of the tenant are demolished, his premises are likely to be effected. He further says that the level of the premises in question is about 1-1/2 feet. He has shown his inability to say anything regarding the condition of the walls of the premises in question being bad. He further admits that the tenant owns two shops in the vicinity where he has put a board of To let which suggestion the tenant himself has denied. 13. RW 3 is Jaswant Singh, who is retired Draftsman from H. P. PWD. Firstly, he is not a technical person being a Draftsman and having retired in his capacity as such. Secondly he was only concerned with the preparation of plans and at the most further making out the estimates Strangely enough, while appearing as an expert, he has feigned ignorance regarding construction of soak-pits of septic tank in a building immediately below it. Though he has admitted that in case the level of the premises in question is to be reduced from 1-1/2 feet to 1 feet and stairs as well as roof has to be constructed, the same cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. He has further stated that in case stairs and new roof is to be constructed, even then for carrying out such construction, the premises have to be vacated. Besides this, the witness has admitted that in case two more storeys are to be constructed above the shop and stairs are to be put up, then the roof has to be replaced, though he states that if only stairs are to be constructed, then those can be put up without tenants vacating the premises in question. RW 4 is Malkiat Singh, who is mason, if a reference is made to his statement, it appears that he is a hired witness simply to support the case of the tenant. 14. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the Landlady has got the building plan fop reconstruction/construction approved in accordance with law which governed such sanction when the petition was filed. In case H. P. Town and Country Planning Act has come into force, then it can be safely inferred that she would obtain the necessary permission from the authorities concerned. In case H. P. Town and Country Planning Act has come into force, then it can be safely inferred that she would obtain the necessary permission from the authorities concerned. But mere non having the permission of the Town and Country Planning Authorities, would not be a ground to defeat the claim of the Landlady which she has otherwise successfully established. In this behalf it may be appropriate to say that the sanction of a building plan is not a requirement of the Act, but is a circumstance to test the bona fide of the person seeking eviction. In the instant case the Landlady had admittedly obtained sanction from the Municipal Authorities, however, in case any other permission Is required, she is bound to obtain the same but on this ground alone the claim of the Landlady cannot be defeated. Moreover, the Landlady is certainly within her right to put the premises in question to more profitable use after reconstruction thereof. This in fact, has been clearly established from the evidence produced by her. Similarly no ground has been made out to doubt the bonafide of her claim in this behalf. 15. Regarding bona fide claim of the Landlady, it stands established beyond any shadow of doubt. Relevant circumstances to establish the same are that the Landlady has got the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Authorities, then she has established on record by her own statement as well as from the statement of her husband the sufficiency of funds for carrying out reconstruction of the premises in question and above all she has further pointed out that they want to put up the premises to more profitable use inasmuch as that after carrying out reconstruction of the premises in question her husband would run a shop whereas, two new storeys which are proposed to be put up above the shop, are to be used by her as residence by them. In this view of the matter by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the need of the Landlady is not bonafide or the circumstances are there to defeat her claim in this behalf. Similarly, the Landlord having shifted to Jagadhri, as claimed by Shri Dogra, also does not defeat her claim for getting the tenant evicted. In this view of the matter by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the need of the Landlady is not bonafide or the circumstances are there to defeat her claim in this behalf. Similarly, the Landlord having shifted to Jagadhri, as claimed by Shri Dogra, also does not defeat her claim for getting the tenant evicted. If a reference is made to the reply filed by the Landlady to the application under Order 41, Rule 27, C. P. C, it is clear that it was under the compelling circumstances her husband was forced to vacate the premises and for the purpose of earning his livelihood he had to go to Jagadhri. I see no reason not to accept this version of the Landlady. 16. Regarding the plea of tenant that after reconstruction the tenant should be put in possession, his counsel has placed reliance on RCR 1983 (2) 251, Nawab AH v Smt. Him Devi, and has thus urged that even if Landlady succeeds in that event directions need to be given. Firstly this judgment of the Honble Apex Court does not spell out that under what circumstances the said order has been passed and further whether it was a case under the Rent Act or under the ordinary law of land and secondly, on facts also this case is distinguishable. In this case before the Honble Apex Court, while remanding the case to High Court, it was ordered to enquire whether there were other tenants adjacent and around the premises in question, and whether the proposed reconstruction could be proceed ed without evicting those tenants. As such it cannot be said that an absolute proposition of law has been laid down in this judgment or that in every case the tenant has to be put back in possession after the premises are reconstructed. Lastly, the powers of the Honble Apex Court under Article 142 are wide which are exclusive with the said court. In this behalf, a reference to AIR 1987 SC 2117, Prabhakaran Nair etc. etc. Lastly, the powers of the Honble Apex Court under Article 142 are wide which are exclusive with the said court. In this behalf, a reference to AIR 1987 SC 2117, Prabhakaran Nair etc. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, can be usefully made wherein the Honble Apex Court has held that in the absence of provision for reinduction of an evicted tenant after reconstruction of the premises, the same is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India simply because in case of repairs, there is a provision for induction and such a classification was held to be reasonable and rational. 17. Admittedly, there is no such provision under the Act except that in a case where a Landlord who had obtained possession of a building under Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 14 puts that building to any use other than that for which it was obtained or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, in such a situation the tenant has been given a right to apply to Controller for an order directing that he be restored the possession of such building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly. In order to properly appreciate the submissions of Shri Dogra provisions of sections 14 (3) (c) and 14 (5) are extracted herein-below :— "14............. (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. (c) in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bonafide by him for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land is required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. (5) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of the building or rented land in pursuance of an order under sub section (3) does not occupy it himself, or if possession was obtained by him for his family in pursuance of an order under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (3), his family does not occupy the residential building, or if possession was obtained by him on behalf of his son in pursuance of an order under Clause (d) of sub-section (3) his son does not occupy it for the purpose for which the possession was obtained, for a continuous period of twelve months from the date of obtaining possession or if possession was obtained under sub-section (2) of section 15 he does not occupy it for personal use for a continuous period of 3 months from the date of obtaining possession or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under Clause (c) of sub-section (3) puts that building to any use other than that for which it was obtained or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.9.” (Emphasis supplied) Admittedly, there is no provision under the Act for restoring the possession save and except under section 14 (5) thereof as such, submission made in this behalf by the learned Counsel for the tenant is hereby rejected. Similar view was taken by this court in 1994 (2) RCR 514, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satwant Singh Kochhar. 18. Similar view was taken by this court in 1994 (2) RCR 514, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satwant Singh Kochhar. 18. Similarly, the crux of the judgments cited on behalf of the tenant, namely, AIR 1963 SC 499 (supra) ; 1979 (2) RCR 239 (supra) and AIR 1971 SC 942 (supra), have held that it should not be a mere wish or fanciful desire of the Landlord while seeking ejectment, but there has to be bona fide and genuine need whereon ejectment can be sought by the Landlord and in order to ascertain the bona fide of the Landlord, sanction of building plan being possessed of sufficient means are some of the relevant factors In the present case both the authorities below after proper appreciation and thorough investigation of the materials produced by the parties on record have come to the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of the Landlady and this court finds no reason to take a different view therefrom. Similarly, this court is not sitting as a court of second appeal and when no illegality and/or impropriety was pointed, as such the ejectment order of the tenant from the premises in question deserves to be upheld. If any authority in this behalf is required, a reference can be usefully made to 1993 (1) SCC 499 (supra) and to AIR 1996 SC 510 (supra) In the face of these decisions of the Honble Apex Court, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. Regarding the plea that the present petition is hit by section 18 of the Act, because the earlier petition filed by the predecessor-in-title of the Landlady was dismissed. When a reference is made to Ex R-2, it is clear that in earlier ejectment petition, the premises in question were stated to be in dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction which was not possible without eviction therefrom. Bona fide requirement of the premises was also pleaded by the Landlady as she wanted to establish her business The said petition was dismissed and under issue No. 1, the Rent Controller had observed that the evidence lead by the Landlady regarding premises in question was of general nature without any expert substantiating the same, the Landlady in that case had not proved her resources, nor proper estimate for the new building was produced. Further the evidence produced in support of her case showed that she was not sure whether she wanted to reconstruct the building or just wanted to repair it So far other ground is concerned, she was non-suited on that ground as it was not available to her in law. Now taking up the present case, it is clearly established that the Landlady has proved to the hilt not only her bona fide need to reconstruct the building but also the sanctioned plan and her resources in support of her case. As already observed, sanction under the Municipal and other laws is for limited purpose, so even if the Landlady had obtained such a sanction, it would be of no consequence because the tenant had been successful in prolonging the litigation for over more than 3-1/2 years. In case any sanction under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act is required, or the extension/revalidation/renewal of the sanctioned plan by the Municipal authorities is required it would only be fruitful to be obtained when the premises are available to the Landlady, as such on this count the tenant cannot improve his case. 20. From whatever angle the case of the tenant may be viewed, there is no illegality muchless impropriety committed by the authorities below in ordering his ejectment and this court finds no reason to take a different view. No other point has been urged by the parties. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition fails and is dismissed accordingly with costs which is quantified at Rs. 2,000 Revision dismissed.