JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This petition is instituted against Judgment dated 1.1.2007 rendered by learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 80-S/14 of 2006. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'landlady' for convenience sake) filed a petition under Section 14 of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake) for the eviction of the respondent-tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant' for convenience sake) from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for reconstruction, which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. Tenant was in arrears of rent. Premises comprised of two rooms measuring 3.20 x 1.95 metres and 3.58 x 1.75 metres. Rent of the premises was Rs. 18/- per month, however, electricity charges were required to be paid separately by the tenant. House was made of Dhajji. Tenant has not paid arrears of rent from 1.1.1990 to 30.3.2004 along with interest @ 9% per annum. 3. Petition was contested by the tenant. According to the averments made by the tenant, there are other tenants, who have succeeded to the tenancy rights of Ram Chand, who was the original tenant. Rent of the premises was Rs. 20/- per month. Premises were not required by the landlady bonafidely. Landlady has sold an adjacent portion of the building for a valuable consideration. Building has not outlived its ordinary span of life. Rent already stood paid to the landlady. Landlady has also sold upper portion/storey immediately situated over and above the premises in question. Necessary parties were not added. 4. Rejoinder was filed by the landlady. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 11.10.2004. He ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that premises in question were required by the landlady for her bona fide requirement of reconstruction, which could not be carried out without premises being vacated by the tenant. Tenant was also held in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 6,223.64/- vide Order dated 1.7.2006. Tenant filed appeal against Order dated 1.7.2006 before the Appellate Authority, Shimla. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal and Order was set aside to the extent of eviction of tenant on the ground of premises being required bona fide by the landlady for reconstruction and eviction. 6,223.64/- vide Order dated 1.7.2006. Tenant filed appeal against Order dated 1.7.2006 before the Appellate Authority, Shimla. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal and Order was set aside to the extent of eviction of tenant on the ground of premises being required bona fide by the landlady for reconstruction and eviction. Order was affirmed to the extent it related to the tenant being in arrears of rent. Hence, this petition. 5. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the landlady has duly proved that the premises were required bona fide by her for the purpose of reconstruction which could not be carried out without evicting the tenant. Statements of PW-1 Arun Bala, PW-2 Anil Arora, and PW-3 H.S. Bist, have not been appreciated properly. There was no evidence available on record before the Appellate Authority to come to the conclusion that without demolishing the entire building reconstruction of building in dispute could not be done. He has placed strong reliance upon the statement of PW-3 H.S. Bist. 6. Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, has supported Judgment dated 1.1.2007. He has relied upon the statement of RW-1 Charanjit. According to him, premises were not required bona fide by the landlady for its reconstruction. Building was not in a dilapidated condition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 8. PW-1 Arun Bala deposed that the respondent was her tenant for the last 30 years. Initially, the rent was Rs. 9/- which was consequently increased to Rs. 18/-. Tenant has not paid her rent for the last 10-12 years. She has also instituted eviction petition against 8-9 tenants. Building in question is 200 years old. Its condition was bad. She wanted to reconstruct the building after demolition. She had sufficient funds with her. She was running a shop in Lower Bazaar. The building was inspected by H.S. Bist. She was capable of raising loan. She wanted reconstruction of the building for deriving more benefit from the same. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she has sold a portion of the building to Love Kumar and Ramesh Kumar. They were residing in the upper floor. Portion of house sold to Ramesh Kumar was above the house of the tenant-Guddi Devi on the corner. She has categorically denied that the foundation of house of the tenant and Ramesh Kumar was the same. They were residing in the upper floor. Portion of house sold to Ramesh Kumar was above the house of the tenant-Guddi Devi on the corner. She has categorically denied that the foundation of house of the tenant and Ramesh Kumar was the same. She also denied that since the foundation is same, reconstruction is not possible. 9. PW-2 Anil Arora deposed that the landlady is owner of the cottage. It is two storeyed. It is old and was constructed in the year 1907. It has become rotten. It is not habitable. Roof is also old. It leaks in rainy season. She has sufficient funds to reconstruct the building. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Ramesh Kumar has purchased the house situate over the house of the tenant. 10. PW-3 H.S. Bist has proved the report Ext. PW-3/B. 11. RW-1 Charanjit deposed that the house where tenant is residing is in good condition. Foundation of the house of Bal Krishan and tenant is common. In case walls of house owned by Guddi Devi are demolished, house of Bal Krishan and R.D. Sharma can also collapse. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the disputed premises are very old. These were never repaired. 12. Tenant has appeared as RW-2. She deposed that initially rent was Rs. 9/- which was increased to Rs. 20/-. She was illiterate. Landlady has refused to issue receipt to her. She sent money order to the landlady, but she refused to accept the same. Ramesh Chand was residing over her house. Ramesh Kumar has purchased it from the landlady. Building was safe. Roof was not rotten. Wood was also in good condition. She has denied the suggestion that the roof of the building has started leaking. She has admitted that in case new building is constructed, it would increase the income of the landlady. It would also increase the accommodation. 13. Landlady, on the basis of Ext. PW-3/A and PW-3/B, has duly proved that the building is very old. Wood has rotten. It is a Dhajji Kuchha structure. Dhajji walls have been repaired and are temporary in nature. Sheets have rusted. Hooks of the roof are missing. Basement portion is not fit for human habitation. It requires to be replaced. Reconstruction work can not be carried out without vacating the premises by the tenant. Newly constructed building would be economically viable besides increasing its rental value. Dhajji walls have been repaired and are temporary in nature. Sheets have rusted. Hooks of the roof are missing. Basement portion is not fit for human habitation. It requires to be replaced. Reconstruction work can not be carried out without vacating the premises by the tenant. Newly constructed building would be economically viable besides increasing its rental value. PW-1 Arun Bala (landlady) has also deposed that the building is old. She wanted to reconstruct the same. She has sufficient funds for the purpose. She has categorically denied that the foundation of her house vis-a-vis house of Ramesh is common. PW-2 Anil Arora has also deposed that the building is very old. RW-1 Charanjit admitted that the disputed premises are very old. 14. Though, RW-2 Guddi Devi deposed that the demised premises are in good condition. There were no cracks however, fact of the matter is that the building is old. It has outlived its utility. Premises are required bona fidely by the landlady of reconstruction, which can not be carried without evicting the tenant. PW-1 has also deposed that she has filed eviction petitions against all the tenants. Though RW-1 Charanjit has deposed that the foundation of the building having different sides is common but no expert evidence has been produced on record by the tenant to prove this fact. It is for the landlady to see how the building can be reconstructed by taking technical advice. Merely because of the fact that the landlady has been selling off different portions of the building, it can not be presumed that she can not reconstruct the building. Findings recorded by the appellate authority that the building can not be reconstructed are erroneous. It is not based on correct appreciation of the evidence led by the landlady. She has sufficient funds. She is running a shop in the Lower Bazaar. Building, if reconstructed, would fetch her more income. 15. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble supreme court in R.C. Tamrakar and another vs. Nidi Lekha, (2001) 8 SCC 431 , have held that the landlord himself is the best judge of what his requirements are and neither tenant nor court may endeavour to show the landlord how he should adjust himself. Their Lordships have held as under: "10. 15. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble supreme court in R.C. Tamrakar and another vs. Nidi Lekha, (2001) 8 SCC 431 , have held that the landlord himself is the best judge of what his requirements are and neither tenant nor court may endeavour to show the landlord how he should adjust himself. Their Lordships have held as under: "10. Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else landlord could have adjusted himself." 16. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Rai Tanwani and another vs. Uttam Chand and another, (2004) 8 SCC 490 , have explained the expression bona fide as under: "15. Recently, in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta this Court in a detailed judgment, dealing with this aspect, analysed the concept of bona fide requirement and said that the requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord. The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a question to himself-whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. We do not think that we can usefully add anything to the exposition of law of requirement for self-occupation than what has been already stated in the three precedents." 17. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Judgment 1.1.2007 rendered by the Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 80-S/14 of 2006 is set aside. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Judgment 1.1.2007 rendered by the Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 80-S/14 of 2006 is set aside. Order dated 1.7.2006 rendered by the learned Rent Controller (4), Shimla, HP in Rent Case No. 10/2 of 2004 ordering eviction of the tenant on the ground that the landlady requires the premises for her bona fide requirement or reconstruction, which can not be carried out without the eviction of the tenant, is upheld. Tenant is now directed to handover the vacant possession to the landlord within a period of three months from today. Thereafter, landlady shall construct the building within a period of two years and tenant shall be re-inducted in the demised premises after one month of the construction of the building in the same place, location and area equivalent to the area which was in occupation of the tenants before the orders were passed by the Rent Controller. The rate of rent after the induction of the tenant by the landlord would be determined as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Jameel Abnbas and others vs. Mohd. Yamin alias Kallu Khan, (2004) 4 SCC 781 ,. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.