JUDGEMENT V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) Since, all the above titled seven revision petitions, except civil revision No. 19 of 2008 which is at the instance of the landlords, filed by the tenants, are in respect of the same building and raise identical questions of fact and law, the same are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment. 2. In all other petitions, except civil revisions No. 180 & 181 of 2007, wherein there are findings of reversal, there are concurrent findings of fact against the tenants. 3. The petitions for eviction were filed by the landlords against the tenants on the grounds of arrears of rent and building or rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated and were allowed on both the grounds. However, since the arrears of rent stood deposited within the stipulated time, such ground is no more available to the landlords for eviction of the tenants. Thus the only ground that remains for consideration is regarding the building being required by the landlords for building or rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without it being vacated by the tenants. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 5. At this stage, it shall be of benefit to observe two aspects that are relevant for disposal of the present petitions. Firstly that it is admitted factual position that unless the landlords get plans for building or rebuilding approved from the concerned municipal authorities, they cannot proceed with such construction, even in case the tenanted premises are vacated by the tenants. It appears that it was in this background that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated though in a case not under The H.P. Urban Rent control Act, 1987 (in short ‘the Act’) reported as Harrington House School versus S.M. Ispahani and another, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2268 that the tenant(s) would not be compelled to vacate the demised premises in execution of the order of eviction, unless such plans are approved by the competent authority. 6. 6. Secondly that during pendency of the present petitions an amendment has been carried out in the Act, whereby a provision granting protection to tenants has been incorporated therein to the effect that a tenant, who is evicted from the demised premises in execution of the order of eviction shall after the building is rebuilt or reconstructed be inducted as a tenant in an area equal to the area he was occupying earlier to rebuilding or reconstruction on the terms to be mutually agreed between the parties. 7. By now it is fairly settled that in a petition for eviction based on the ground of building or rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated by the tenant, the age and condition of the building is not very much material and instead the only requirement is that the intention on the part of the landlord(s) should be genuine and bona fide for which he has also to show that he has the requisite funds/capacity to raise the intended construction. 8. Admittedly, the building in question is situate in Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. It is a four storeyed building comprising of three shops on the ground floor and residential accommodation on the upper storeys. Admittedly, the entire building is in occupation of the tenants. It was purchased by the landlords pursuant to an auction held under court orders. As already noticed, though there are findings of reversal in two cases referred to hereinabove, yet the fact remains that in all other cases there are concurrent findings of fact that the building is about 80-90 years old with “DHAJJI” walls. There is also evidence on record with regard to the financial capacity of the landlords to carry out the intended construction. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority are upheld subject to the following conditions:- i)In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harrington House School, supra, which has also been followed by this court in a series of cases, the order(s) of eviction shall not be liable to be executed unless the landlords produce before the Executing Court plans of the building duly sanctioned by the competent authority. ii) The tenants shall be entitled to the protection of the amendment carried out in Section 14 of the Act by way of insertion of a proviso to clause (c) to Sub-Section 3 thereof, meaning thereby that they shall have “the right to re-entry on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant, to the premises in the re-built building equivalent in area to the original premises for which he was a tenant”, in accordance with law. Admittedly, the tenant in CR No. 3 of 2008, Shri Madan Lal, has paid the up-to-date use and occupation charges in respect of the demised premises being occupied by him to the landlord. In all other cases the tenants shall pay the arrears of use and occupation charges due upto 31 .3.2012 to the landlords within 30 days from today, whereafter they shall keep on paying/depositing future use and occupation charges on quarterly basis regularly by 15th day of the month next after the quarter for which such charges would be payable. The tenant in CR No. 3 of 2008 shall also keep on paying future use and occupation charges on quarterly basis in the same manner. As prayed for on behalf of the landlords by their learned senior counsel, there shall be a direction to the tenants to provide reasonable access to the landlords and their engineer(s)/architect(s) to enable them to carry out measurements of the demised premises in occupation of the each tenant for preparation of building plans. In view of disposal of CR No. 3 of 2008, Sh. Madan Lal Vs. Sh. Karam Chand and others, cross CR No. 19 of 2008, Sh. Karam Chand and others Vs. Sh. Madan Lal has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. In view of disposal of the main petitions, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.