Judgment Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This is a revision under Sec.24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent control Act, 1987. The respondent is the landlord. He had filed eviction petition against the tenant on the grounds that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and it also requires reconstruction. The petition was contested by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 27.4.2009 allowed the petition on both the grounds. The tenant carried out the matter in appeal against the order dated 27.4.2009 and learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 25.8.2009. Thereafter, tenant has filed the revision in this Court. 2. I have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Rent controller has held that building is more than 100 years old and requires reconstruction. The plan has been approved by Municipal Corporation, but not by Town Planning Authority. The sanctioning of plan is not absolutely necessary in view of Om Parkash vs. Ganga Ram, Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 161. The learned Rent Controller has also held that over all condition of the building has become dilapidated, the walls are out of plumb, cracks have appeared, floors have sagged, the wood has decayed. The roof sheets have become rotten. The water is seeping into the walls. The plaster has come out. It is dangerous to live in the building. 3. In Prem Chand alias Prem Nath Vs. Shanta Prabhakar (Smt.) (1998) 1 SCC 274, while considering Sec.14 (3) (c ) of the Act, the Supreme Court has held that when the tenanted premises are required bonafide by the landlord for purposes 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, then there is no requirement in such cases to go into the condition of the building. 4. In Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh (dead) by LRS. 4. In Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh (dead) by LRS. and others (2003) 1 SCC 191, while considering Sec.14 (3) (c ) of the Act, the Supreme Court has held that a landlord may apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of tenancy premises in case of any building or rented land being required bonafide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. The provision does not have as an essential ingredient thereof and as a relevant factor the age and condition of the building. The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement to eviction of tenant. However, the court may look into such facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredients of the ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bonafides of the landlord. 5. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119, rafat Ali Vs. Sugni Bai and others (1999) 1 SCC 133, Kailash Chander vs. Om Prakash and another (2003) 12 SCC 728 and Ajit Singh and another vs. Jit Ram and another (2008) 9 SCC 699 has held that scope of revision under different Rent Acts is very limited. It has not been pointed out during the course of hearing that the two authorities below have ignored some material evidence or the decisions are based on some inadmissible evidence or decisions are otherwise perverse or erroneous. The two authorities below have rightly appreciated the material on record and have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the landlords have proved both the grounds of eviction. 6. There is no merit in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed.