JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is a revision under Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short ‘Act’). The respondents are the landlords. They had filed eviction petition against the original tenant Varesh Dawar 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 22.12.2008 allowed the petition on both the grounds. 2. The learned Rent Controller has held that cracks have developed in the building. The age of building is about 100 years. The reports of experts were considered and thereafter learned Rent Controller has held that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 3. The tenant carried out the matter in appeal against order dated 22.12.2008 and learned Appellate Authority on 2.7.2009 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, tenant had filed revision in this Court but during the pendency of the revision, original tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on record for limited purposes of deciding the petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plan has not been sanctioned. But the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that RW-2 Jamna Dass has stated that plan has been sanctioned. The plan has been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla vide order Ex.PW-2/A. The funds for reconstruction have been proved. The two Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the building also requires reconstruction. The sanctioning of plan is not absolutely necessary in view of Om Parkash vs. Ganga Ram, Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 161. In Prem Chand alias Prem Nath Vs. Shanta Prabhakar (Smt.) (1998) 1 SCC 274, while considering Section 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. 5. In Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh (dead) by LRS. 5. In Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh (dead) by LRS. and others (2003) 1 SCC 191, while considering Section 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. 6. 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. I have gone through the record. 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. There is no merit in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed.