JUDGEMENTS Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) eard and gone through the record of the present petition. 2.Eviction of the revision petitioner had been ordered by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 8.9.2009, on three grounds, i.e. non-payment of rent, building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and landlord bonafide requiring the premises for reconstruction and rebuilding. Order was challenged by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority, by the present petitioner. Appeal has been dismissed and eviction of the petitioner affirmed on two grounds, i.e. the building having unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the landlord requiring the premises bonafide for reconstruction and rebuilding. Third ground of eviction became infructuous, on account of the tenant having deposited the arrears of rent, with interest etc. 3. A petition, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, was filed before the Appellate Authority, seeking leave of the Court to lead additional evidence. That petition was dismissed, with the observations that none of the pre-requisites for allowing such a petition was shown to exist, the petition was filed after the matter had been finally heard and that the evidence sought to be led was not going to serve any purpose, since there was an admission by the petitioner, with respect to the facts, which he wanted to disprove by means of additional evidence sought to be adduced. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-landlord was not the owner of the premises and, therefore, petition was not maintainable. During the course of trial, landlord produced one reply Ext. PW1/C given by the revision petitioner to a notice served upon him by the grandmother of the landlord-respondent, in which he admitted that the grandmother of the respondent-landlord alongwith other heirs of her husband Gian Chand, was the owner/landlady. In view of this admission, it does not lie in the mouth of the revision petitioner to say that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself. 5. Petitioner’s claim in the reply was that he had been residing in the premises in his own right. He did not clarify what did he mean by words “in his own right”. However, while leading evidence he tried to show that the premises had been gifted to his father by the previous owner, i.e. Ruler of erstwhile State of Dhaulpur in Rajasthan and that he inherited the premises from his father. He did not clarify what did he mean by words “in his own right”. However, while leading evidence he tried to show that the premises had been gifted to his father by the previous owner, i.e. Ruler of erstwhile State of Dhaulpur in Rajasthan and that he inherited the premises from his father. No gift deed was proved. Two Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that no gift had been made. In any case, when in the aforesaid reply given by the tenant to a notice served upon him by the grandmother of the respondent-landlord it was stated that she alongwith other heirs of her husband was the owner of the premises, in question, oral evidence with regard to the alleged gift in favour of tenant’s father, cannot be accepted. 6. Another submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that property lies in core area of Shimla Town where construction cannot be carried out unless there is clearance by the Town & Country Planning and approval of plan by the Municipal Corporation. It is not denied by the learned counsel, representing the landlord-respondent that plan has not been approved nor does he deny that there is no clearance from Town and Country Planning, though he does say that no clearance from that department is required. This point has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with respect to eviction on the ground that premises are bonafide required for reconstruction and rebuilding. 7. There are several judgments which say that where eviction is sought on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction, approval of the plan is not a sine qua non for passing an order of eviction and that the order of eviction passed on the ground becomes executable only after the plan is approved and other clearances required from various departments are there. Therefore, submission is without merit. 8. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that a writ petition filed by another tenant, challenging the title of the respondent-landlord, is pending in this Court and, therefore, the present matter may be decided only after this Court gives verdict in that writ petition. The tenant, who has filed that writ petition, has already been ordered to be evicted and revision petition filed by him in this Court, challenging the order of eviction, stands dismissed. The tenant, who has filed that writ petition, has already been ordered to be evicted and revision petition filed by him in this Court, challenging the order of eviction, stands dismissed. So, this submission also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 9. As regards the order of rejection of application for additional evidence to disprove the title of the respondent-landlord, it has already been held that in view of admission in the reply Ext. PW1/C, additional evidence could not have served any purpose and as regards clearance from Town and Country Planning Department and approval of plan by the Municipal Corporation, order would not be executable unless plan is approved by the Municipal Corporation and clearance, if required, is obtained from the Town and Country Planning Department. 10. In view of the above stated position, petition is dismissed.