JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Complaint is that learned Rent Controller-II, Solan has committed illegality and irregularity while allowing amendment in reply to the rent petition filed by the petitioner-tenant, particularly vide order dated 7.10.2015, under challenge in these proceedings. 2. The petitioner is a tenant. The respondent-landlord has sought his eviction from the shop situate in ground floor of the building known as Shop No. 47-49, Shri Radhe Lal building, Circular road, Solan on the ground of subletting, he being in arrears of rent and that the building very old and in dilapidated condition needs to be re-constructed. The petitioner-tenant has filed reply to the rent petition. Subsequently, he filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the following amendment in the reply: ?18 (a) (1) That the contents of para no. 18 (a) (!) of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the tenant has failed to pay rent to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1994 till filing of the petition @ 1000/- month rest of the contents of this para are wrong and denied. In fact premises in question were let out @250/- month which is being paid regularly with statutory increase at the rate of 10% after five years to the petitioners till today. The rent is paid in presence of Harmohinder Sood and Mr. Gopal Verma to the petitioner and some time to her husband and her son Sachin, who also used to collect the rent on behalf petitioner. It is also worth submitting that premises were in occupation of Sh. Kachru prior to 1994 and he was running audio and video cassette shop in the same premises. As such the present petition is filed in collusion with respondent No. 1 who was projected by petitioner just to get undue advantage.? 3. Substitution of word =tenant' and deletion of word =plaintiff' in para 18 (a) (i) of the reply filed originally has also been sought. As such the present petition is filed in collusion with respondent No. 1 who was projected by petitioner just to get undue advantage.? 3. Substitution of word =tenant' and deletion of word =plaintiff' in para 18 (a) (i) of the reply filed originally has also been sought. Pleading qua right of re-entry in the following manner in view of the amendment under Section 14 of the Act, which extends a right in favour of the tenant of re-entry in the building after its re-construction have also been sought to be incorporated:- ?Provided that the tenant evicted under this clause shall have right to re-entry on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the land lord and tenant, to the premises in re-built building equivalent in area to the original premises for which he was tenant.? 4. The petitioner-tenant also intends to insert following by way of preliminary objection No. 3:- ?3. That the petition is premature, as the petitioner has no right, title or interest to seek eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises unless and until he get building plan prepared and sanctioned in such a manner which provides for construction of new building in such a manner that similar and equivalent area can be given on tenancy to the tenant/respondent. Moreover, in the petition there is no description for plea taken by the petitioner that the building which is proposed to be constructed is being constructed in such a manner that similar and equivalent space will be given to the respondent No. 2 and as such the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.? 5. He further intends to insert following by way of preliminary objection No. 4:- ?4. That the petitioner has no right to raise construction of new building as no building plan has been got approved from MC Solan and the earlier sanction plan has lapsed approximately 4-5 years ago and the petitioner has not renewed the same plan and as such the petitioner is barred under Municipal Law to raise construction of building or reerect the building in question or to make any type of addition/alternation in the same.? 6. It is seen that amendment i.e. substitution of word =plaintiff' with word =tenant' has already been granted by learned Rent Controller. 6. It is seen that amendment i.e. substitution of word =plaintiff' with word =tenant' has already been granted by learned Rent Controller. As regards, amendment in the reply allegedly necessitated in view of the amendment in Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Rent Controller has rightly rejected the prayer so made for the reason that provisions of the Act need not to be pleaded in the reply, rather the petitioner-landlord is at liberty to point out the same during the course of final hearing in the rent petition. 7. Now, if coming to the amendment that without getting the plan in respect of re-building of the demised premises prepared and sanctioned, the respondent-landlord cannot seek eviction of the petitioner-tenant, the same is also uncalled for because the Apex Court has authoritatively held that the preparation of the plan and its sanction cannot be a condition precedent to seek the eviction of the tenant on the ground of demised premises bonafidely required for the purpose of re-building and re-construction. This Court draw support in this case from the judgment of the apex Court in Hari Dass Sharma v. Vikas Sood and others (2013) 5 SCC 243 which read as follows: ?13. In Jagat Pal Dhawan v. Kahan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (supra), this Court had the occasion to consider the provisions of Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act and R.C. Lahoti J. writing the judgment for the Court held that Section 14 (3) (c) does not require that the building plans should have been duly sanctioned by the local authorities as a condition precedent to the entitlement of the landlord for eviction of the tenant. To quote from the judgment of this Court in Jagat Pal Dhawan v. Kahan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (supra): (SCC p. 194, para 6) ?6…….The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement to eviction of the tenant. & Ors. (supra): (SCC p. 194, para 6) ?6…….The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement to eviction of the tenant. However still, suffice it to observe, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, the court may look into such facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredient of the ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bona fides of the landlord. If a building, as proposed, cannot be constructed or if the landlord does not have means for carrying out the construction or reconstruction obviously his requirement would remain a mere wish and would not be bona fide.? It will be clear from the aforesaid passage that this Court has held that availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authorities is not an ingredient of Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act and, therefore, could not be a condition precedent to the entitlement of the landlord for eviction of the tenant, but depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court may look into the availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authorities for the purpose of determining the bonafides of the landlord. 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 plan 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. (2002) 5 SCC 229 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 multistorey 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.? 8. 8. This judgment even has also been followed by this Court in Karam Chand and others vs. Jasbir Kaur and others, C.R. No. 125 of 2012, decided on 16.8.2013, Roshan Lal Bhardwaj vs. Ashok Sud and another, C.R. No. 4034 of 2013 decided on 4.10.2013, R.R.Sharma vs. Gopla and others, C.R. No. 4053 of 2013 decided on 24.10.2013, Deepak Boot House and another vs. Dr. Piyare Lal Sood, 2014 (1) Shim. L.C. 47, Janmejai Sood vs. Ram Gopal Sood, C.R. 62 of 2013 decided on 4.11.2014, Vinod Kumar vs. Varinder Kumar Sood, C.R. No. 60 of 2013 decided on 13.5.3015. 9. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this Court feels that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order under challenge in this petition. The same is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. An authenticated copy of this judgment to learned Rent Controller below for being taken on record and compliance.