JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.-This revision petition arises out of the judgment of the Appellate Authority dismissing the eviction petition instituted by the petitioners-landlords herein claiming eviction of the respondents-tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and the building bonafide required for reconstruction by the landlord. 2. The petitioners preferred eviction petition under Section 14(2)(1), 14(3) ( c) and 14(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the allegations that the respondents-tenants were in arrears of rent and premises were required by the petitioners for reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller, on the settled issues held that the tenants were in arrears of rent and on the question of reconstruction, on the evidence of PW1 Ajay Kumar landlord and site plan Ext.PW1/A, it was held that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for reconstruction purposes. 3. In appeal preferred by the tenants before the learned Appellate Authority, the question of nonpayment of rent had become infructuous as the entire amount etc. had been received by the landlord-petitioners. On the other aspect, the learned Appellate Authority held that petitioners-landlords had been unable to establish their bonafide requirement on the ground of reconstruction. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Appellate Authority considered the evidence of PW1 Ajay Kumar and found that there was nothing in his statement which could establish the bonafides of the landlords and what they sought to enforce was their mere wish and desire. In these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-landlord submits that the learned Appellate Authority was in error in ignoring the evidence of lanrdlods. The bonafides of the petitioners-landlords for reconstruction were established more especially when the respondents have not stated anything to the contrary as to what had been brought on record by the evidence of PW1 Ajay Kumar, landlord, that premises were required bonafide for reconstruction. He submits that evidence of PW1 having remained unrebutted, the decree for eviction was the only logical consequence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I cannot accept the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the landlords-petitioners have been able to establish their bonafide requirement. He submits that evidence of PW1 having remained unrebutted, the decree for eviction was the only logical consequence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I cannot accept the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the landlords-petitioners have been able to establish their bonafide requirement. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioners are in possession of sufficient funds for reconstruction or site plan has been applied for or sanctioned or technically the building is in such a position that it is required to be pulled and down and then reconstruced. Merely stating that it is required for the purpose of reconstruction does not constitute bonafides, sufficient in law for the grant of decree for eviction. The landlord expresses his mere desire and not on established grounds. There is thus no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.