Order : P.S. Rana, J. Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 24(5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 against order passed by learned Appellate Authority (II) Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 32-S/13 (B) of 2010 title Dhani Ram Rana vs. Krishana Prasad whereby learned Appellate Authority modified order of learned Rent Controller to the extent that tenant shall have a right of re-entry in the demised premises on mutual new terms of tenancy. Brief facts of the case 2. Shri Krishana Prasad landlord filed petition under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 for eviction of tenant on the grounds that premises is bonafide required by landlord for re-construction. It is pleaded that reconstruction could not be carried out without eviction of tenant. It is pleaded that landlord intended to reconstruct the entire premises with modern construction and with modern facilities, amenities and technology. It is pleaded that premises has also become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is pleaded that building in question is more than 100 years old and has outlived its life span. It is further pleaded that walls of premises have developed cracks. It is further pleaded that floor and roof of premises are completely damaged. It is pleaded that tenant did not pay the arrears of rent since 1.1.2000. It is pleaded that premises is non-residential in nature and rent is Rs.60/- per month. It is pleaded that electricity and water facilities supplied to tenant. It is pleaded that premises was let out to respondent for usage as bakery shop in the name of Deluxe Bakery. It is also pleaded that tenant has illegally changed the user from bakery to some kabari shop (Dealer in old or broken furniture). Prayer for acceptance of eviction petition sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of tenant pleaded therein that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that initially the premises was rented out by Chander Kanta in the year 1969 at the monthly rent of Rs.60/-. It is pleaded that during the period 1977-78 premises was purchased by Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad and rent was paid to them. It is pleaded that owners are Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad to the extent of half share. It is pleaded that half share is owned by Chander Kanta and Kanwar Vijay Singh. It is pleaded that during the period 1977-78 premises was purchased by Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad and rent was paid to them. It is pleaded that owners are Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad to the extent of half share. It is pleaded that half share is owned by Chander Kanta and Kanwar Vijay Singh. It is pleaded that allegations relating to change of user are wrong. It is pleaded that premises was constructed in the year 1969. It is pleaded that premises was rented out for commercial purpose and tenant is performing the commercial activities in premises. It is pleaded that condition of building is sound and no reconstruction is required. Prayer for dismissal of eviction petition sought. 4. Landlord also filed rejoinder and re-asserted the allegations as pleaded in eviction petition. 5. As per pleadings of parties following issues were framed by learned Rent Controller on 1.10.2008:- 1. Whether demised premises is required by applicant bonafidely for the purpose of reconstruction as claimed? OPA 2. Whether premises in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as claimed? OPA 3. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent as claimed? OPA 4. Whether application is not maintainable as alleged? OPR 5. Whether application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR 6. Whether application lack material particulars as alleged? OPR 7. Relief. 6. Learned Trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 3 in affirmative and decided issues Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 in negative. Learned Rent Controller partly allowed the evicrtion petition and ordered the eviction of tenant on ground of reconstruction and rebuilding of premises which could not be carried out without premises being vacated. Learned Rent Controller also passed the eviction order against tenant on ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2000 till 30.4.2010 at the rate of Rs.60/- per month along with statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum total amounting to Rs.10900/-. Learned Rent Controller further directed that if tenant would deposit the arrears of rent within 30 days then tenant would not be evicted on ground of arrears of rent. Learned Rent Controller further directed that eviction order on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction would not be executed unless plan duly sanctioned/approved by competent authority is not produced by the landlord. 7. Learned Rent Controller further directed that eviction order on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction would not be executed unless plan duly sanctioned/approved by competent authority is not produced by the landlord. 7. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned Rent Controller Dhani Ram tenant filed appeal No. 32-S/13(b) of 2010 titled Dhani Ram vs. Krishna Prasad before Appellate Authority (II) under Section 24(1)(b) under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987. Landlord also filed cross objections No. 2-S/11 of 2011 titled Krishna Prasad vs. Dhani Ram Rana. Learned first Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of tenant partly and modified the order of learned Rent Controller. Learned first Appellate Authority dismissed cross objections filed by landlord. 8. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned first Appellate Authority tenant filed present revision petition. 9. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and Court also perused entire record carefuly. 10. 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. 11. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 11.1 AW1 Ashok Kumar CTO UCO Bank Kasumpti proved copies Ext.AW1/A and Ext.AW1/B Ext.AW1/C, Ext.AW1/D placed on record. He has stated that FD amount can be withdrawn by customer at any time. 11.2 AW2 Lekh Ram Registration Clerk office of Sub Registrar (Rural) Shimla has proved sale deed Ext.AW2/A. He has stated that vendees are two persons namely Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad. 11.3 AW3 Pushap Raj JE MC Shimla has stated that Krishana Parsad has filed proposed construction site plan for reconstruction upon old line on 12.1.2009 which is under process. He has stated that proposed construction site plan was submitted relating to Khasra Nos. 1001, 1011, 1012 which is situated at Upmohal Chhota Shimla. He has stated that he could not state the factual situation of building. He has stated that proposed constructed site plan is under process. 11.4 AW4 Kamlesh Chandel Record Keeper office of District & Sessions Judge Shimla has stated that he has brought the summoned record and further stated that decree Ext.AW4/A was passed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. 11.5 AW5 Krishana Parsad has stated that he is owner of premises and tenant is Dhani Ram. He has stated that rent of premises is Rs.60/- per month. 11.5 AW5 Krishana Parsad has stated that he is owner of premises and tenant is Dhani Ram. He has stated that rent of premises is Rs.60/- per month. He has stated that copy of jamabandi is Ext.AW5/A. He has stated that he has brought original record of sale deed which is Ext.AW2/A. He has stated that facilities of electricity and water supplied in premises. He has stated that tenant is performing the work of Kabari (Dealer in old and broken furniture) in premises. He has stated that earlier tenant used to run bakery in premises. He has further stated that premises is 100 years old. He has stated that he intends to reconstruct the premises with new technology in order to increase economic utility of premises. He has stated that reconstruction is not possible without eviction of tenant. He has further stated that cracks have developed in walls, floors of premises and upper roof of premises has also damaged. He has stated that he has filed proposed construction site plan before Municipal Corporation which is under process. He has stated that he has sufficient sources of income for reconstruction of premises. He has stated that he has purchased the premises in the year 1978 from Sharda Parsad. He has denied suggestion that premises is in good condition. He has denied suggestion that he refused to accept the rent in the year 2000. He has denied suggestion that he did not receive the rent from tenant just to harass the tenant. 11.6 AW6 B.C. Sharma has stated that he has obtained diploma in civil engineering from Government College Sundernagar. He has stated that he is posted as JE in HPSEB department. He has stated that he has submitted 200-250 reports in Court about condition of buildings. He has stated that he personally visited premises on 10.3.2008 and thereafter submitted report Ext.AW6/A. He has stated that plan is Ext.AW6/B. He has stated that photographs are Ext.AW6/C-1 to Ext.AW6/C-10 and negatives of photogrpahs are Ext.AW6/C-11 to Ext.AW6/C-20. He has stated that premises is in very dilapidated condition. He has stated that eviction of tenant is essential for reconstruction of premises. He has stated that report is factually correct. He has denied suggestion that photographs are not related to premises. He has denied suggestion that he has prepared the report without visiting spot. He has stated that premises is in very dilapidated condition. He has stated that eviction of tenant is essential for reconstruction of premises. He has stated that report is factually correct. He has denied suggestion that photographs are not related to premises. He has denied suggestion that he has prepared the report without visiting spot. He has denied suggestion that no cracks have developed in walls of premises. He has denied suggestion that roof of building is in proper condition. He has denied suggestion that he has submitted report at the instance of landlord. 11.7 RW1 Dhani Ram tenant filed affidavit Ext.RW1/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that tenant was inducted by Chander Kanta on rent of Rs.60/- per month in the year 1969. There is recital in affidavit that subsequently in the year 1977-78 premises was purchased by Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad. There is recital in affidavit that after purchase of premises by Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad they have started to collect rent from tenant at the rate of Rs.60/- per month. He has stated that premises comprised of one room. There is recital in affidavit that half share is owned by Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad and half share is owned by Chander Kanta and Vijay Singh. There is recital in affidavit that accommodation in question is non-residential in nature and tenant did not change the user of premises at any point of time. There is recital in affidavit that premises was constructed in the year 1969 and condition of building is sound. There is recital in affidavit that premises did not outlive its ordinary span of life and wood work is also in sound and good condition. There is recital in affidavit that landlord did not obtain any permission from municipal corporation for reconstruction of premises. There is recital in affidavit that landlord has no sufficient funds to reconstruct the building. There is recital in affidavit that tenant has paid the rent upto December 2000 and thereafter landlord did not receive the rent from tenant. There is recital in affidavit that tenant deposited the rent before learned Rent Controller Shimla. In cross examination RW1 has stated that he does not know that partition proceedings took place between Sharda Parsad and Krishana Parsad on 5.5.2006. RW1 admitted that he is tenant of Krishana Parsad after 1978. There is recital in affidavit that tenant deposited the rent before learned Rent Controller Shimla. In cross examination RW1 has stated that he does not know that partition proceedings took place between Sharda Parsad and Krishana Parsad on 5.5.2006. RW1 admitted that he is tenant of Krishana Parsad after 1978. RW1 has denied suggestion that building is 100 years old. Self stated that building was constructed in the year 1979. RW1 has denied suggestion that cracks have developed in walls and floor of building. RW1 has denied suggestion that he did not pay rent after 1.1.2001. 11.8. RW2 J.K. Mahandroo has stated that he retired as Executive Engineer from IPH department in the year 2006 and he inspected the premises and he submitted report Ext.RW2/A. He has stated that site plan is Ext.RW2/B. He has stated that he served in IPH department for 38 years. He has stated that photographs are Ext.R-1 to Ext.R-5 and negatives are Ext.R-6 to Ext.R-10. He has admitted that he took photographs at the spot. RW2 has denied suggestion that cracks have developed in walls. RW2 has denied suggestion that building is 100 years old. RW2 has denied suggestion that condition of premises is dilapidated. He has denied suggestion that photographs Ext.R-1 to Ext.R-5 did not belong to premises in dispute. 11.9 RW3 Balwant Ram has stated that his shop is situated at a distance of 100 metres from disputed premises. He has stated that tenant is running the shop of hardware and further stated that earlier tenant used to run bakery in premises. He has stated that premises is in proper condition. He has stated that walls, floor and windows of premises are in proper condition. He has stated that premises did not require any reconstruction. He has denied suggestion that cracks have developed in walls and floor of premises. He has denied suggestion that he is deposing against facutal condition of premises at the instance of tenant. 12. Following documents filed by parties. (1) Ext.AW1/A is fixed deposit receipt in the name of Krishana Parsad wherein Krishana Parsad deposited Rs.40911/-(Rupees forty thousand nine hundred eleven only) in UCO Bank. (2) Ext.AW1/B is fixed deposit receipt amounting to Rs.39624/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand six hundred twenty four only) issued in the name of Krishana Parsad by UCO Bank for period of 24 months. (1) Ext.AW1/A is fixed deposit receipt in the name of Krishana Parsad wherein Krishana Parsad deposited Rs.40911/-(Rupees forty thousand nine hundred eleven only) in UCO Bank. (2) Ext.AW1/B is fixed deposit receipt amounting to Rs.39624/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand six hundred twenty four only) issued in the name of Krishana Parsad by UCO Bank for period of 24 months. (3) Ext.AW1/C is fixed deposit receipt in the name of Krishana Parsad issued by UCO Bank amounting to Rs.41494/- (Rupees forty one thousand four hundred ninety four) for the period of twelve months. (4) Ext.AW1/D is fixed deposit receipt issued by UCO Bank in the name of Krishna Prasad amounting to Rs.36055/- (Rupees thirty six thousand fifty five)for period of 24 months. (5) Ext.AW2/A is copy of sale deed dated 2.9.1978 executed between Rani Chander Kanta and Padam Singh through General Attorney Vijay Singh in favour of Sharda Parsad and Krishna Parsad sons of Satya Narain wherein premises in question was purchased in consideration amount of Rs.25000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). (6)Ext.AW4/A is decree sheet passed by learned District Judge Shimla in case No. 138-S/1 of 1995 wherein final decree of partition was passed between Krishna Parsad and Sharda Parsad. (7)Ext.AW4/B is application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. (8) Ext.AW5/A is copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-03 whereby Sharda Parsad and Krishna Parsad have been recorded as co-owners of suit property and in remarks column it has been mentioned that vide mutation No. 212 share of Sharda Parsad devolved upon Jagjivan Parsad, Gaya Parsad, Baij Nath, Ramesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar sons, Smt. Ramrani and Parvati and Poonam in equal shares. There is recital that vide mutation No. 226 partition took place and Khata alloted in share of Krishan Prasad. (9) Ext.AW5/B is copy of petition filed under Section 21 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 by Dhani Ram against Krishna Parsad. (10) Ext.AW5/C is application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC in civil suit No. 138-S/1 of 1995 titled Krishana Prasad vs. Sharda Parsad and others. (11) Ext.AW6/A is technical site visit report filed by Him Engineers and Architects Association relating to demised premises. (12) Ext.AW6/B is site plan. (13) Ext.AW6/C-1 to Ext.AW6/C-10 are photographs and negatives are Ext.PW6/C-11 to Ext.PW6/C-20. (14) Ext.RW2/A is technical report submitted by Er. J .K.Mahindroo relating to demised premises. (15) Ext.RW2/B is site plan. (11) Ext.AW6/A is technical site visit report filed by Him Engineers and Architects Association relating to demised premises. (12) Ext.AW6/B is site plan. (13) Ext.AW6/C-1 to Ext.AW6/C-10 are photographs and negatives are Ext.PW6/C-11 to Ext.PW6/C-20. (14) Ext.RW2/A is technical report submitted by Er. J .K.Mahindroo relating to demised premises. (15) Ext.RW2/B is site plan. (16) Ext.R1 to Ext.R5 are photographs. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that present eviction petition is bad for non-joining of necessary parties is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has perused copy of jamabandi Ext. AW5/A placed on record for the year 2002-03. In ownership column names of Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad have been mentioned and in possession column it has been specifically mentioned that tenants are in possession and in remarks column it has been specifically mentioned that property of Sharda Parsad has been devolved upon Jagjivan Parsad, Gaya Parsad, Baij Nath, Ramesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar sons, Smt. Ramrani, Parvati and Poonam in equal shares and it has been further specifically mentioned that vide mutation No. 226 partition took place and entire khata falls in share of Krishana Parsad. Even tenant has filed affidavit by way of evidence in examination in chief. Tenant has admitted that after purchase of premises he used to pay rent to Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad. Tenant has himself admitted that he used to pay rent to Krishana Parsad and Sharda Parsad. In view of above stated facts it is held that present eviction petition is not bad non-joinder of necessary parties. It is well settled law that facts admitted need not be proved under Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that nature of construction and how much expenditure would be incurred on proposed construction not mentioned and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is was held in case reported in Latest HLJ 2011 HP 64 title Tara Dutt Sharma vs. Sanjeev Pandit that approval of site plan is not sine qua non for passing eviction order. Also see Latest HLJ 2001 page 161 title Om Prakash vs. Ganga Ram. It is was held in case reported in Latest HLJ 2011 HP 64 title Tara Dutt Sharma vs. Sanjeev Pandit that approval of site plan is not sine qua non for passing eviction order. Also see Latest HLJ 2001 page 161 title Om Prakash vs. Ganga Ram. It was held in Civil Appeal No. 4127 of 2013 title Hari Dass Sharma vs. Vikas Sood decided on 29.4.2013 by Apex Court that direction in eviction order that eviction order would be executed on submission of construction plan of building is contrary to provision of Section 14(4) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987. It is well settled law that law laid down by Apex Court of India is binding upon all Courts of India under Article 141 of Constitution of India. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that although right of re-entry granted to tenant by Appellate Authority but terms and conditions of tenancy including size of accommodation is not determined and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that under Order 14 Rule 3 (c) tenant has right of re-entry and right of reentry will be decided by learned Rent Controller when application would be filed by tenant for re-entry in accordance with latest law. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that as per testimony of J.K. Mahindroo and as per technical report Ext.RW2/A premises is safe, suitable and fit for habitation and there is no necessity to demolish premises at present and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Him Engineers & Architect Association has filed report Ext.AW6/A placed on record and there is recital in report that age of premises is between 50-60 years and premises has outlived its span of life. There is recital in report Ext.AW6/A that building is situated in best locality of Shimla and by carrying proposed construction new structure would give more enhanced economic value to owner of premises. There is recital in report Ext.AW6/A that in locality premises in dispute is only old and dilapidated building and all other buildings have been reconstructed with new outlook. It is well settled law that for purpose of rebuilding addition alteration condition of demised premises is not vital factor. There is recital in report Ext.AW6/A that in locality premises in dispute is only old and dilapidated building and all other buildings have been reconstructed with new outlook. It is well settled law that for purpose of rebuilding addition alteration condition of demised premises is not vital factor. See (1998)1 SCC 274 titled Prem Chand vs. Shanta Prabhakar. Also see (2003)1 SCC 191 title Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh (dead) through LRs. and others. It is well settled law that tenant cannot dictate terms to landlord when landlord intend to rebuilt premises to increase its economic utility. See (2008)8 SCC 497 title Deep Chandra Juneja vs. Lajwanti Kathuria (Dead) through LRs. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned Rent Controller and learned First Appellate Authority did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. 18. It is well settled law that High Court should not interfere in concurrent findings of fact arrived at by learned Rent Controller and learned first Appellate Authority on crucial and fundamental issues involved in case while exercising revisional power unless there is illegality and impropriety. See AIR 1988 SC 852 titled Hira Lal vs. Prabhu Chaudhary. See (1987)3 SCC 538 title Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and others. See (1987)2 SCC 219 title Sushila Devi and others vs. Avinash Chandra Jain and others. It is held that there is no illegality or impropriety in order of learned first Appellate Authority. Point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Relief) 19. In view of findings upon point No.1 civil revision is dismissed. In addition in view of ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court announced in SLP No. 3747 of 2013 decided on 13.01.2014 title M/s R.S. Puranmull Trust vs. M/s Dyal Sons Cloth Merchants tenant will handover vacant possession of premises to landlord within period of one month. Thereafter landlord will complete new construction of premises within six months in accordance with law. Thereafter tenant will have right of re-entry in newly constructed premises in accordance with latest law. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Thereafter landlord will complete new construction of premises within six months in accordance with law. Thereafter tenant will have right of re-entry in newly constructed premises in accordance with latest law. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Files of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority be sent back along with certified copy of this order. Revision petition is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications also stands disposed of.