JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is a petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against judgment dated 4.8.2009 passed by learned Appellate Authority (2) Kangra at Dharamshala in Rent Appeal No.5-D/2003. 2. Sham Sunder Mehra landlord had filed petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short Act) against petitioner-tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent, bonafide building, rebuilding and the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 31.3.2003 on the last two grounds. The petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 31.3.2003, during the pendency of petition Sham Sunder Mehra died and his legal representative Ashok Kumar was brought on record. The learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on 4.8.2009, hence the tenant has filed the revision. 3. The revision has been filed on the grounds that both the authorities below have misread and misconstrued the evidence on record. The learned Rent controller on the issue of building or rebuilding has discussed the evidence and has recorded a finding that the building is about 90 years old and the same is in a dilapidated condition. The landlord has sufficient funds at his disposal which is apparent from Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/F. The plan has already been sanctioned by the Municipal Council as well as by Town and Country Planning. The estimated costs of the proposed construction of the building has also been taken into consideration and thereafter a finding has been recorded that landlord has more than sufficient funds at his disposal for the reconstruction of the building. The learned Rent Controller has also recorded a finding that it has been proved that re- construction is to be done after demolition of the old structures. A finding has also been recorded that another petition against Smt. Charanjit Kaur etc. filed by the landlord has been allowed. The said matter was finally taken to the Apex court wherein the SLP filed by Smt. Charanjit Kaur was dismissed. The learned Rent Controller has ultimately recorded a finding that premises in question is required bonafide for building and re-building which cannot be carried out without vacating the same. 4. The issue No.3 regarding the condition of the building was also decided by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller has ultimately recorded a finding that premises in question is required bonafide for building and re-building which cannot be carried out without vacating the same. 4. The issue No.3 regarding the condition of the building was also decided by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence on record has recorded a finding that there are cracks in the walls of the shop in question which are made of local bricks with mud mortar. The walls have also been separated from roof slab. There is also seepage of water on the ground floor which has also deteriorated the condition of the shop. The learned Rent Controller has held that shop in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The learned Appellate Authority after considering the evidence on record has affirmed the finding recorded by learned Rent Controller on the condition of the premises in question and bonafide reconstruction of the premises. 5. In Prem Chand alias Prem Nath vs. Shanta Prabahakar (1998) 1 SCC 274 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 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 condition of the building. Even though condition of the building is a vital factor whether such requirement is specifically stated in the Section or not. in Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh and others (2003) 1 SCC 191 the Supreme Court has held that the bonafides of such a requirement could not have been doubted solely on the ground that the structure of the building though old and outdated, had not gone so weak as was needed to be demolished immediately. 6. The scope of interference in revision is limited unless it is shown that the material evidence has been ignored and inadmissible evidence has been considered or the impugned judgment is perverse but learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged that some inadmissible evidence has been considered and material evidence which goes to the root of the case has not been considered nor it has been urged that impugned judgment is perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for admission. Resultantly, petition is dismissed. 7. In view of the disposal of the main petition, the application is rendered infructuous. CMP No.685 of 2009