Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 54-S/14 of 2012. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the “landlord” for convenience sake) filed eviction petition under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenant’ for convenience sake). The landlord has sought the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises firstly on the ground that the building in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; the building is more than 100 years old, it was constructed of Dhajji wall and with the passage of time the construction material has decayed rendering the building unsafe and unfit for human habitation and secondly the building is required bona fide by the landlord for building and rebuilding. 3. Petition was contested by the tenant. According to the tenant, the building was owned by two different persons, namely, Varinder and Keshav Ram. The ground floor and first floor of the building were owned by Keshav Ram since 1993. The building could not be reconstructed without sanction accorded by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The building is not in a dilapidated condition. The construction could be carried without eviction of premises by the tenant. 4. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller. He allowed the petition on 16.5.2012 by ordering the eviction of the tenant. However, according to the Rent Controller the eviction would become available to the landlord only when the building plans are sanctioned by the competent authority. Tenant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.5.2012 filed an appeal bearing Rent Appeal No. 54-S/14 of 2012 before the Appellate Authority. Landlord preferred an appeal against the order dated 16.5.2012 bearing Rent Appeal No.55-S/14 of 2012 before the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the tenant bearing Rent Appeal No.54- S/14 of 2012 was partly accepted by the appellate authority on 9.1.2013 by ordering re-entry of the tenant after the completion of rebuilding equivalent to the area to original premises. The appeal bearing Rent Appeal No.55- S/14 of 2012 filed by the landlord was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. The appeal bearing Rent Appeal No.55- S/14 of 2012 filed by the landlord was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the landlord has failed to prove that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He has further argued that the courts below have come to a wrong conclusion that the building in question was required bona fide for the purpose of building and rebuilding. He has also contended that there are two owners of the building and in these circumstances, the building cannot be reconstructed. He has lastly contended that till the maps are not approved, eviction order would not become effective. 6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sood, learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the order dated 9.1.2013. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Firstly, the Court will advert to the question whether the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Landlord Varinder Kumar has appeared as AW-1. According to him, the building is 100 years old. He intends to reconstruct building on the basis of RCC structure after demolishing building on old lines. Reconstruction was not possible without eviction of tenant. He is owner of ground floor. He has further stated that Keshav Ram is owner of basement floor and sub-basement floor. The agreement was executed inter se the parties jointly vide Ext. AW-1/B. The Building plan was approved by Municipal Corporation, Shimla vide Ext. AW-1/C. He has proved sanction order Ext. AW-1/D and AW-1/E. According to him, floors have developed cracks and foundation of the building was weak. He has sufficient funds for the purpose of building and re-building. He wanted to reconstruct the building for better economic use. 9. AW-2 Keshav Ram has testified that he has purchased two floors from the landlord in the year 1993. He intends to reconstruct building alongwith landlord Varinder Kumar. He executed agreement for the purpose of reconstruction Ext. AW-1/A. The building is in dilapidated condition. 10. AW-3 B.C. Sharma is most material witness. He has proved report Ext. AW-3/A. He has proved photographs Ext. AW-3/A-1 to Ext. AW-3/A-4. He has visited the spot on 25.6.2008. He has found the condition of the building dilapidated. According to him, the building was made of Dhajji walls. The building has developed cracks. 10. AW-3 B.C. Sharma is most material witness. He has proved report Ext. AW-3/A. He has proved photographs Ext. AW-3/A-1 to Ext. AW-3/A-4. He has visited the spot on 25.6.2008. He has found the condition of the building dilapidated. According to him, the building was made of Dhajji walls. The building has developed cracks. The main load bearing wall has developed cracks. He has proved that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the same is required to be reconstructed. Reconstruction was not possible without evicting the tenant. 11. AW-4 Gurvir has proved sanction letter Ext. AW-1/D. According to him, the extension was granted on 19.7.2000 vide Ext. AW-4/A. The construction of two storeys was sanctioned from road level and two storeys were sanctioned below road level. 12. AW-5 Pardeep Gupta has proved Ext. AW-1/C. According to him, sanction letter Ext. AW-1/D was correct as per original record. 13. Tenant Vinod Kumar has appeared as RW-1. According to him, towards eastern side there is a building of Rajesh Khanna and towards eastern side there is a building of Kulbhushan Sood. The landlord has instituted eviction petition with intention to enhance rent. Reconstruction was possible without his eviction. Some other person was owner of the basement portion. He has denied the suggestion that wood used in the premises was damaged completely. He has denied the suggestion that the building is 100 years old. 14. RW-2 Rajesh Khanna has deposed that his father Dharam Pal was owner of building and after his death in the year 2005, he and his brother have become owners. The wall of the building was common. Half portion of common stairs was owned by him and other half was owned by Varinder Kumar. 15. What emerges from the statements of the witnesses is that the building is 100 years old. It has out lived its life. It has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as per report Ext. AW-3/A prepared by AW-3 B.C. Sharma. AW-3 B.C. Sharma has visited the spot on 25.6.2008. According to him, the main load bearing wall has developed cracks. According to him, rebuilding was not possible without evicting the tenant. The landlord has proved that he has sufficient funds for reconstruction of the building since he wanted to put the building for better use after reconstruction. AW-3 B.C. Sharma has visited the spot on 25.6.2008. According to him, the main load bearing wall has developed cracks. According to him, rebuilding was not possible without evicting the tenant. The landlord has proved that he has sufficient funds for reconstruction of the building since he wanted to put the building for better use after reconstruction. He has proved the sanction letter/AW-1/D. Though the same has expired but it was extended vide Ext. AW-4/A dated 19.7.2000. The building is situated in the core area. The construction in core area can also be carried out after getting sanction from the competent authority. 16. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid has argued that the building is owned by two owners and rebuilding can not be carried out. Suffice it to say that landlord has entered into an agreement with AW-2 Keshav Ram, for reconstruction of the building vide Ext. AW-1/A. Agreement Ext. AW-1/A has been proved by AW-1 Varinder Kumar and AW-2 Keshav Ram. The tenant has not produced any witness to prove the condition of the building. 17. Now, as far as approval of sanction of building plan is concerned, their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have held while interpreting section 14 of the HP Urban Rent Control Act that the approval of sanction of building plan is not sine qua non seeking eviction of the tenant. 18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma vs. Vikas Sood and others, (2013) 5 SCC 243 , have held that under section 14 (3) (c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 duly sanctioned building plan is not a condition precedent for entitlement of landlord for eviction of tenant. Their Lordships have held as under: 17. In fact, the only question that we have to decide in this appeal filed by the appellant is whether the High Court could have directed that only on the valid revised/renewed building plant being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution. The High Court has relied on the decision of this Court in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani & Anr. The High Court has relied on the decision of this Court in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani & Anr. (supra) and we find in that case that the landlords were builders by profession and they needed the suit premises for the immediate purpose of demolition so as to construct a multi-storey complex and the tenants were running a school in the tenanted building in which about 200 students were studying and 15 members of the teaching staff and 8 members of the non-teaching staff were employed and the school was catering to the needs of children of non-resident Indians. This Court found that although the plans of the proposed construction were ready and had been tendered in evidence, the plans had not been submitted to the local authorities for approval and on these facts, R.C. Lahoti, J, writing the judgment for the Court, while refusing to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and affirming the eviction order passed by the Controller, directed that the landlords shall submit the plans of reconstruction for approval of the local authorities and only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authorities, a decree for eviction shall be available for execution and further that such sanctioned plan or approved building plan shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering the possession to the landlord and till then the tenants shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the said premises at the same rate at which they are being paid. 18. In the present case, on the other hand, as we have noted, the Rent Controller while determining the bonafides of the appellant-landlord has recorded the finding that the landlord had admittedly obtained the sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, and has accordingly passed the order of eviction and this order of eviction has not been disturbed either by the Appellate Authority or by the High Court as the Revision Authority. In our considered opinion, once the High Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the Controller under Section 14(4) of the Act, the tenants were obliged to give vacant possession of the building to the landlord and could only ask for reasonable time to deliver vacant possession of the building to the landlord and hence the direction of the High Court that the order of eviction could only be executed on the revised plan of the building being approved was clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act and the proviso thereto.” 19. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid has also contended that there are two common walls and thus reconstruction is not possible. Whether the construction is possible on common wall is to be seen when the building is to be reconstructed and it is between the neighbours and landlord to resolve this issue at the time of building and rebuilding. The tenant is estopped from disputing title of the landlord as per section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 20. In the case of Joginder Singh and another vrs. Smt. Jogindero and ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 1654 , their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that tenant cannot deny the title of land lord. It has been held as follows: “6. Late Surain Singh and Respondent Bur Singh did not seriously dispute that they were not tenants under Smt. Soman in respect of the land in dispute and adduced no evidence in that behalf. On the contrary Khasra Girdawari Ext.P.6 clearly indicated that the deceased Surain Singh (who is represented by his legal representatives in this appeal) and Bur Singh were tenants under Smt. Soman with regard to the land in suit. This being the position the tenants could not be permitted to deny or dispute the title of the owner. This is a settled view that having regard to the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act no tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the owner of such property. In this connection it would be relevant to make a reference to the decision of this Court in Veerraju Vs. In this connection it would be relevant to make a reference to the decision of this Court in Veerraju Vs. Venkanna [1966 (1) SCR 831 (839) = AIR 1966 SC 629 ] wherein this Court, with reference to the decision of Privy Council took the view as under:- "A tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord" 21. The Appellate authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the tenant has a right to re-entry after building is reconstructed and rent would be as agreed between the parties after taking into consideration the rent prevalent in the area. 22. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Tenant is now directed to handover the vacant possession to the landlord within a period of three months from today. Tenant shall be reinducted 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 application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.