ORDER : 1. Present civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 23.8.2011 passed in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2010 titled Ramesh Chand Jaswal vs. Roshan Lal Sharma whereby learned first Appellate Authority affirmed the order of learned Rent Controller passed in rent petition No. 4 of 2007 titled Roshan Lal Sharma vs. Ramesh Chand Jaswal. Brief facts of the case 2. Roshan Lal landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant under Section 14 of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act pleaded therein that premises in question was given to tenant to carry the business of electric work in the month of August 1981 at the rent of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only) per month plus house tax. It is pleaded that tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.7.2003 and tenant has not paid the statutory increased rent to petitioner. It is pleaded that tenant has damaged the beam of roof and walls of premises developed cracks and demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is pleaded that landlord bona-fide required the premises for rebuilding and rebuilding cannot be carried out without eviction of tenant. Prayer for acceptance of eviction petition sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of tenant pleaded therein that rent of demised premises is Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only) per month including house tax. It is pleaded that tenant is not in arrears of rent. It is pleaded that tenant offered the rent but landlord refused to accept the rent. It is pleaded that landlord visited the shop in the month of December 2006 and collected Rs. 12,600/- (Rupees twelve thousand six hundred only) in cash as arrears of rent. It is further pleaded that arrear of rent is barred by law of limitation. Prayer for dismissal of rent petition sought. 4. Landlord filed rejoinder and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in rent petition. 5. On the pleadings of parties learned Rent Controller framed following issues on 3.10.2007:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent if so to what extent? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of 10% of rent as prayed? OPA 3. Whether the premises is bonafidely required for rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated as alleged? OPA 4. Relief. Learned Rent Controller decided issues Nos. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent if so to what extent? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of 10% of rent as prayed? OPA 3. Whether the premises is bonafidely required for rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated as alleged? OPA 4. Relief. Learned Rent Controller decided issues Nos. 1 to 3 in affirmative and learned Rent Controller passed the eviction order against tenant on account of arrears of rent and on the ground that demised premises is bonafidely required by landlord for rebuilding purpose. Learned Rent Controller held that tenant is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 68196/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand one hundred ninety six only) along with interest w.e.f. 18.8.1997 till 30.11.2010. Learned Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the rent within 30 days and learned Rent Controller further directed the tenant to evict the premises and deliver the possession to landlord. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller tenant filed appeal No. 3 of 2010 titled Ramesh Chand vs. Roshan Lal before first Appellate Authority. Learned first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by tenant. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned first Appellate Authority the tenant filed the present revision petition. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and Court also perused entire record carefully. 9. Following points arise for determination in civil revision petition:- 1. Whether civil revision is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition? 2. Relief. 10. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons 10.1 AW1 P.L. Bains has stated that since fourteen months he used to prepare the site plan and site plan Ext.AW1/A was prepared by him after visiting the spot. He has stated that site plan Ext.AW1/A is signed by him. In cross examination he has stated that he did not prepare site plan Ext.AW1/A as per revenue record. He has stated that he has prepared site plan as per factual position. 10.2. AW2 Bashlinder Kumar has stated that he took photographs Ext.A-1 to Ext.A-5 from spot which are correct as per factual position. He has stated that he has handed over the negatives of photographs. He has stated that he did not see the negatives of photographs in Court file. 10.2. AW2 Bashlinder Kumar has stated that he took photographs Ext.A-1 to Ext.A-5 from spot which are correct as per factual position. He has stated that he has handed over the negatives of photographs. He has stated that he did not see the negatives of photographs in Court file. 10.3 AW3 Dinesh Sharma Architect has stated that he is performing the work of architecture. He has stated that he personally visited the spot and prepared site plan Ext.AW3/A. He has stated that he prepared report Ext.AW3/B which is correct. In cross examination he has stated that he had qualified the diploma in draftsman. He has stated that he could not state about Khasra numbers. He has stated that he did not specifically mention the cracks in site plan Ext.AW3/A. 10.4. AW4 Roshan Lal landlord has filed affidavit in his examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that demised premises was given to tenant in the month of August 1981 at the rate of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only) per month. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant is running the shop of electric items in demised premises. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant did not pay the rent w.e.f. 1.7.2003. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant has caused damage to beams of demised premises. There is also recital in affidavit that walls of demised premises have developed cracks. There is recital in affidavit that demised premises would fall at any point of time. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent also obtained the report from architect and there is recital in affidavit that work of rebuilding cannot be effected without eviction of tenant. Landlord has admitted in cross examination that demised premises was constructed in the year 1970. Landlord has admitted that he did not obtain the damaged report of building from municipal committee. He has denied suggestion that he has received the rent to the tune of Rs. 12,600/- (Rupees twelve thousand six hundred only) in the month of December 2006. He has denied suggestion that he did not issue the rent receipt. Landlord has admitted that he did not obtain the damaged report of building from municipal committee. He has denied suggestion that he has received the rent to the tune of Rs. 12,600/- (Rupees twelve thousand six hundred only) in the month of December 2006. He has denied suggestion that he did not issue the rent receipt. 10.5 RW1 Anil Kumar Nazir office of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Una has stated that he has brought the summoned record of case titled Roshan Lal vs. Kulwant Singh and further stated that he has also seen original rent petition and its certified copy is Ext.RW1/A. 10.6 RW2 Rakesh Kumar has filed affidavit in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that RW2 is tenant of landlord. There is recital in affidavit that RW2 is residing in lower portion. There is recital in affidavit that in the month of August 2006 water was collected upon the roof of demised premises and thereafter landlord caused damage to the roof of demised premises for flow of water. He has admitted that landlord has also filed eviction petition against him. He has admitted that he is also tenant of landlord. He has stated that he did not give any notice to landlord and also denied suggestion that he has deposed in Court at the instance of tenant. 10.7 RW3 Ramesh Chand tenant has filed affidavit in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that Roshan Lal is landlord of demised premises and deponent is tenant of demised premises. There is recital in affidavit that demised premises was given upon rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only) including house tax. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent is running the electric shop. There is recital in affidavit that demised premises was constructed in the year 1970. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant is not in arrears of rent. There is also recital in affidavit that tenant offered the rent to landlord but landlord refused to accept the rent. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant had paid Rs. 12600/- (Rupees twelve thousand six hundred only) to landlord in the last week of December 2006 in cash. There is recital in affidavit that landlord did not issue the receipt. There is also recital in affidavit that demised premises is safe for human habitation. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant had paid Rs. 12600/- (Rupees twelve thousand six hundred only) to landlord in the last week of December 2006 in cash. There is recital in affidavit that landlord did not issue the receipt. There is also recital in affidavit that demised premises is safe for human habitation. He has stated that he could not produce the receipt of payment of rent. He has stated that he also did not send the money order to landlord. He has denied suggestion that he himself damaged the beam of demised premises. He has denied suggestion that he did not pay the rent w.e.f. 1.7.2003. 10.8 Court witness Satya Vrat Sharma Executive Engineer HPPWD Una Division has stated that he was appointed as local commissioner by Court. He has stated that he inspected the building and submitted report Ext.CW1/A which is signed by him. He has denied suggestion that he has submitted wrong report relating to demised premises. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that orders of learned Rent Controller and learned first Appellate Authority that demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation are based upon non-appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. AW3 Dinesh Sharma has submitted his report Ext.AW3/B which is quoted in toto:- REPORT OF ARCHITECT I personally visited the Old construction of shops and I found this construction is in dilapidated condition. This building was very old and cracks are found on surface of the slabs, beam of the slabs was broken, some settlement and cracks developers. The projection of front side was also in dilapidated condition. There were cracks in whole of the side and back walls. Open was made by breaking the side walls A.C. was fixed, some trees were grown in the slabs on the back side of this building. Under these circumstances this old building can fall at any time and cause injury of any type to general public. And it is necessary to dismantle this old building. Dinesh Sharma AW3 has specifically mentioned in his report that demised premises would fall at any time and would cause injury to general public. AW3 has submitted in his report that it is necessary to dismantle the old building. And it is necessary to dismantle this old building. Dinesh Sharma AW3 has specifically mentioned in his report that demised premises would fall at any time and would cause injury to general public. AW3 has submitted in his report that it is necessary to dismantle the old building. Report of AW3 is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of AW3 Dinesh Sharma. There is no positive evidence on record that AW3 has hostile animus against tenant at any point of time. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned Rent Controller and learned first Appellate Authority did not properly appreciate the report of Court witness i.e. Satya Vrat Sharma Executive Engineer Una Division HPPWD is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Executive Engineer Una Division HPPWD has specifically mentioned in his report Ext.CW1/A placed on record that beam has been dismantled in portion of Ramesh Chand tenant. Executive Engineer HPPWD Una Division has specifically mentioned in his report that some seepage of rain water was also seen. Executive Engineer has specifically mentioned in his report that cracks were seen in walls and projection portion. Executive Engineer Una Division HPPWD has mentioned in his report Ext.CW1/A that demised premises is certainly in deteriorating stage. It is well settled law that report should be read in entirety and should not be read in isolation. After perusal of report of Executive Engineer Una Division HPPWD Ext.CW1/A it is proved on record that demised premises is certainly in deteriorating stage. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that demised premises is in proper condition is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Tenant did not place on record any counter expert report. There are two expert reports on record i.e. Ext.AW3/B and Ext.CW1/A conducted by Dinesh Sharma and Satya Vrat Sharma. Dinesh Sharma architect has specifically mentioned in his report Ext.AW3/B that demised premises is old building and would fall at any time and would cause injury to general public. Dinesh Sharma AW3 has specifically mentioned in his report that it is necessary to dismantle the old building. Dinesh Sharma architect has specifically mentioned in his report Ext.AW3/B that demised premises is old building and would fall at any time and would cause injury to general public. Dinesh Sharma AW3 has specifically mentioned in his report that it is necessary to dismantle the old building. Report of Dinesh Sharma Ext.AW3/A is corroborated by report of Executive Engineer Una Division HPPWD Ext.CW1/A wherein Executive Engineer has mentioned in his report that certainly the demised premises is in deteriorating stage. Hence it is held that it is proved on record by way of reports of two experts that demised premises is in deteriorating stage. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that there is no evidence on record that landlord has sufficient funds for reconstruction and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Tenant did not cross examine the landlord on the point that landlord has no sufficient funds to raise new construction. In view of the fact that tenant did not cross examine the landlord when he appeared in witness box on that point that landlord has no sufficient funds to raise new construction it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow the revision petition on this ground. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionst that no approved construction site plan is placed on record on behalf of landlord and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that filing of approved construction site plan is not sine qua non for filing eviction petition. See Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 64 titled Tara Dutt Sharma vs. Sanjeev Pandit. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionst that learned Rent Controller and learned first Appellate Authority did not properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the order passed by learned Rent Controller and learned first Appellate Authority. Court has carefully perused the order passed by learned Rent Controller and learned first Appellate Authority. It is held that learned Rent Controller and learned first Appellate Authority have properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and learned Rent Controller and learned first Appellate Authority did not cause any miscarriage of justice to tenant in any manner. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionst that building is not required bona-fide by landlord for the purpose of rebuilding and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that landlord can evict the tenant for the purpose of rebuilding in order to increase the economic utility of premises. It is held that reconstruction for increasing the economic utility of premises cannot be effected without eviction of tenant. Mangan Lal vs. Nana Saheb, 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 102 (SC), Deep Chand vs. Lajwanti, 2008 (8) SCC 497 , A.K. Jain vs. Prem Kapoor, 2008 (8) SCC 593 , Som Dutt Sharma vs. Sham Lal, 2010 (1) H.L.R. 442 . In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Relief) 18. In view of findings on point No. 1 above revision petition filed by tenant is dismissed. However condition imposed by learned first Appellate Authority that Executing Court will execute the eviction order only after production of approved construction plan is vacated in view of ruling of Apex Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4127 of 2013 titled Hari Dass vs. Vikas Sood (Apex Court of India) decided on 29.4.2013 and in view of ruling of Apex Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4128 of 2013 titled Hari Dass vs. Kesri Devi (Apex Court of India) decided on 29.4.2013 and in view of ruling given by Apex Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2013 titled Hari Dass Sharma vs. Shiv Prasad (Apex Court of India) decided on 29.4.2013. It is further held that tenant will have right of re-entry as per Section 14(3) Sub clause (c) Proviso of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987. It is further ordered that landlord will complete the entire construction within six months. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision petition is disposed of. It is further held that tenant will have right of re-entry as per Section 14(3) Sub clause (c) Proviso of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987. It is further ordered that landlord will complete the entire construction within six months. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision petition is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.