JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.(Oral) Petitioner-landlady has challenged the judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority (II), Una in Rent Appeal No. 3/06, whereby while partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant has quashed his order of eviction passed by learned Rent Controller on the ground of the building is bonafidely required by her for rebuilding and reconstruction. The eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent has, however, been upheld. 2. Admittedly, the respondent was inducted as tenant by the petitioner-landlady in one of the shops shown in red colour in the site plan Ext. P-2 she constructed over the land measuring 18-00 square decimeter comprised in Khewat No. 80 min, Khatauni No. 150 and Khasra No.1404 situated in up-mohal Indira Nagar and Mauza Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. The rent as agreed upon was Rs. 700/- per month. The respondent-tenant failed to pay the rent to the petitioner-landlady and the petition for his eviction was filed at the stage when he was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 39,900/-. As per further case of the petitioner-landlady, the demised premises being old and in dilapidated condition is having roof of old tiles hence, became unsafe for human habitation and that on the already filled up foundations, it is not possible to raise further construction on the first floor and as such the same was bonafidely required for rebuilding and reconstruction so that the building could be put to best and beneficial use. 3. The respondent-tenant when put to notice has contested the petition. It is denied that the rent was Rs. 300/- per month. The rent up till July, 2002 was paid to the petitioner-landlady. It is denied that the shop was in dilapidated condition and also unfit for human living. 4. Rejoinder was filed and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so, to what extent? OPP. 2. Whether the demised premises are bona fide required by petitioner for reconstruction and rebuilding? OPP, . 3. Whether the respondent has impaired the value of the premises in question? OPP. 4. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPR. 5. Whether petitioner is estopped by her act or conduct to file petition? OPR. 6. Relief. 5. OPP. 2. Whether the demised premises are bona fide required by petitioner for reconstruction and rebuilding? OPP, . 3. Whether the respondent has impaired the value of the premises in question? OPP. 4. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPR. 5. Whether petitioner is estopped by her act or conduct to file petition? OPR. 6. Relief. 5. Learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence, while answering issues No. 1 and 2 in affirmative, has concluded that the respondent is in arrears of rent and that the demised premises are bonafidely required by the petitioner for reconstruction and rebuilding. The remaining issues, however, were answered in negative. Consequently, in view of the findings on all the issues, learned Rent Controller has ordered the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and also the demised premises were bonafidely required for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction. 6. Learned Appellate Authority has, however, reversed the findings on issue No. 2 and concluded that the petitioner-landlady has failed to make out a case that the building is in dilapidated condition and that the same is bonafidely required for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction. It is the legality and validity of this part of the impugned judgment which is questioned in the present appeal. 7. It is worth mentioning that the respondent-tenant has opted for not putting appearance in this petition and was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 8. On hearing, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlady and also going through the evidence available on record as well as the provisions contained under Section 14(3) (c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, it would not be improper to conclude that it is not always necessary that the eviction of a tenant can only be ordered when the building is in dilapidated condition or unsafe or unfit for human habitation and rather the tenant can also be evicted therefrom if the landlord is otherwise able to satisfy the conscious of the Court that the rebuilding and reconstruction is required for making substantial additions or alterations and to put the demised premises to best use of it by doing so and also that such building or rebuilding or additions or alterations cannot be carried out without the building or demised premises is got vacated. 9. 9. True it is that cogent and reliable evidence is not forthcoming that the building in which the demised premises are situated is in dilapidated condition or unsafe for human habitation. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner-landlady has made out a case for eviction of the respondent-tenant as it is not possible to raise the construction of first floor on the existing structure. As noticed supra, the rebuilding and reconstruction is necessitated to make out provision of additional accommodation in the building so that the landlord can put the same to best and beneficial use of the land belonging to him or the building constructed thereon. There was another tenant namely Sunil Kumar. The evidence reveals that said Sunil Kumar in an eviction petition filed against him for his eviction on the same grounds had agreed to vacate the shop with him on rent in the building in question in the year 2003. The petitioner-landlady could not reconstruct the building in question because of the respondent-tenant in possession of one of the shops i.e. demised premises in existence therein. In view of the reasons herein above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises is required because the petitioner-landlady has made out a case for reconstruction of the same so that she can put her property to best and beneficial use. No prejudice is likely to be caused thereby because as per provisions under the Act itself, he has the right of re-induction in that much area presently in his possession as tenant in the building being constructed by the petitioner-landlady, of course on payment of rent to be settled taking into consideration the rent of similar space prevalent in the market. 10. Therefore, the impugned judgment to the extent of denying the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of the building is bonafidely required for reconstruction and rebuilding is quashed and set aside and the order passed by learned Rent Controller is upheld. 11. The petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.