JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant Civil Revision Petition stands directed against the impugned order recorded by the learned Appellate Authority-IV, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 37-S/14 of 2013/2011 on 11.11.2014, whereby, it reversed the verdict recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Petition No. 76-2 of 2008, whereby, the latter had partly allowed the apposite petition constituted therebefore by the landlords/respondents herein, wherein they sought the eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant, from the demised premises. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents herein claimed themselves to be the owners of a four storeyed building also housing a shop having dimension of 7x8 feet situated in ground floor of the building as specifically depicted in the enclosed site plan, hereinafter referred to as demised premises, situated in Lakkar Bazar, had sought the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the petitioner herein/tenant has been in possession of demised premises as tenant on monthly rent of Rs.300/-, since 1.7.1998, has not paid rent thereof to them w.e.f. 01.07.1999 and that as such he is now also liable to pay statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon. Moreover, the building housing the demised premises is more than 100 years old and has outlived its life. Its wall constructed in stone and brick masonry with wooden rafters (dhajji) have plumbed. CGI sheets laid down on the roof have rusted and as a consequence, thereof, during the rainy and winter season, the water percolates therefrom into the walls and as a result thereof cracks have occurred in the walls. In fact the structure as a whole has been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Respondent is running a shop I the demised premises. In the first floor thereof, they are residing. The second floor thereof is in possession of one Sh. O.P. Sharma as tenant. The top floor which earlier was in the tenancy of Sh. O.P. Sharma, is in possession of same third person who has been unauthorisedly inducted therein as a tenant by above referred Sh. O.P. Sharma without their permission and consent. The building is situated in heart of the town and as such has vast commercial potential. O.P. Sharma as tenant. The top floor which earlier was in the tenancy of Sh. O.P. Sharma, is in possession of same third person who has been unauthorisedly inducted therein as a tenant by above referred Sh. O.P. Sharma without their permission and consent. The building is situated in heart of the town and as such has vast commercial potential. They, intend to demolish the present structure and construct in place thereof a modern RCC structure with a view to exploit its commercial potentiality so as to enhance their income. To accomplish their plan, they are also going to file a separate eviction petition against above named Sh. O.P. Sharma and would also vacate their part of premises as proposed reconstruction is not feasible without vacation of the entire structure by all the occupants. They are having sufficient resources at their command to put their plan into action and in this behalf, they have also moved Municipal Corporation, Shimla for obtaining requisite permission for reconstructing a new structure on old lines. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petitioner herein/tenant contested the petition and filed reply thereto, wherein, he had taken preliminary objection qua malafide, maintainability, non joinder of necessary party and cause of action. On merits, he did not dispute his status as tenant in respect to the demised premises but questioned the status of the petitioners as landlord by taking the plea that they in fact are representatives of the landlord and he has been paying rent to him in that capacity. He however, did not deny the factum of arrears of rent but refuted the reasons there for. He submitted that he has been always willing to pay the arrears of rent and thus denied his liability to pay any interest there over. As regard averments with respect to reconstruction, he denied that the building has outlived its life or that it has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Renovation work of the ground floor as well as that of the first floor had been done in the year 1997-98 by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and after the execution of the aforesaid work, the building is now in good condition. He pleaded that the petitioners are only owners to the extent of 33% and the remaining shares are owned by different owners. He pleaded that the petitioners are only owners to the extent of 33% and the remaining shares are owned by different owners. AS such, in the absence of the consent of the remaining owners, the petition preferred is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 4. The landlords/respondents herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the tenant/petitioner herein, wherein, they denied the contents of the reply and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so to what amount?OPP 2. Whether the suit premises is bonafide required for reconstruction and rebuilding which is not possible without getting the suit premises vacated?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action?OPR 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller partly allowed the petition of the landlords/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the landlords/respondents herein before the learned Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the orders recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 7. Now the tenant/petitioner herein has instituted the instant Civil Revision Petition before this Court assailing the findings recorded in its impugned order by the learned Appellate Authority. 8. The demised premises are located on the ground floor of a building situated in 19/34 Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, wherein, the tenant/petitioner herein is running a commercial venture. The relevant contestable ground qua the firm entitlement of the landlords/respondents herein to seek eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein from the aforesaid demised premises, stands anvilled upon the latter satiating, by adduction of cogent evidence, the factum probandum qua ill health besides the dilapidated condition of the demised premises, whereupon, hence, its reconstruction is warranted, for facilitation whereof, the eviction of the tenant therefrom is imperative. In proof of the aforesaid ill health of the demised premises also qua its dilapidated condition, whereupon, its reconstruction is necessitated, for leveraging facilitation whereof, the eviction therefrom of the petitioner herein/tenant is imperative, the landlords/respondents herein had led into witness box, one Shri Shiv Saran, PW-2. In proof of the aforesaid ill health of the demised premises also qua its dilapidated condition, whereupon, its reconstruction is necessitated, for leveraging facilitation whereof, the eviction therefrom of the petitioner herein/tenant is imperative, the landlords/respondents herein had led into witness box, one Shri Shiv Saran, PW-2. In his deposition the aforestated witness has succored the relevant pleadings echoed in the apposite petition wherein unfoldments occur qua the dilapidated condition of the demised premises also has testified therein qua its warranting its reconstruction, for facilitation whereof, the eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein, from the relevant demised premises occurring on its ground floor, is imperative, importantly when the reconstruction of the building has to commence from its base, by excavation of foundations thereto. The aforesaid communications occurring in the testimony of PW-2, the purported expert, though succor the apposite pleadings constituted in the apposite petition for eviction, wherein unfoldments occur qua the ill health of the demised premises also qua unless the petitioner herein/tenant is ordered to be evicted therefrom, its reconstruction when is a dire necessity for hence improving its health also for enhancing its longevity, would hence stand forestalled, nonetheless, the import of his testification qua the entire building warranting reconstruction, in a portion whereof, the relevant demised premises occur, cannot neither stand undermined nor slighted nor also can the admissions held in the pleadings constituted in the apposite petition qua on the top floor of the relevant building, a tenant named one Shri O.P. Sharma holding occupation thereof, in respect wheretowhom, no petition for eviction stands instituted besides with the landlord while testifying as PW-1 omitting to underscore therein qua any apposite petition for seeking eviction of one Mr. O.P. Sharma, who holds occupation as a tenant in a part of the building, remaining yet instituted, whereupon, the effect of both the aforesaid material/pronouncements is qua the respondents herein/landlords singularly selecting the petitioner herein/tenant for seeking his eviction from the demised premises, whereas, their excluding other tenants in the building, for seeking their eviction from portions occupied therein by him/them as tenants. The further effect of the aforesaid pronouncements occurring in the aforesaid material, is qua with PW-2 testifying qua the entire building being in a state of ill health also in a state of dilapidation, whereupon, its reconstruction is warranted for hence enhancing its longevity, when nowat, stand coagulated with the relevant demised premises hereat evidently occurring on the ground floor of the building, whereas, portions above it stand occupied by other tenants qua whom no petition for their eviction therefrom stand instituted, thereupon, if the apposite petition for seeking eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant, who occupies the ground floor of the relevant building, wherefrom, the reconstruction activity of the building is to commence, is hence permitted to succeed, it would sequel the collapsing of the entire building, begetting the concomitant inapt sequel, of the tenants occupying the floors existing above the demised floor with respect to whom, no petition for their eviction therefrom stand instituted, hence, ipso facto suffering their eviction therefrom despite no pronouncement standing rendered upon them by competent Courts. Also their/his eviction would naturally ensues on the floors occurring above the ground floor, upper floors whereof stand occupied by him/them, on commencement, after eviction of the tenant hereat of the relevant reconstruction from its base, portion whereof is the relevant demised premises, hence, naturally obviously collapsing. In case, the aforesaid eventuality is permitted to be effectuated, thereupon, the inevitable ensuing sequel therefrom would be even without the fiat of the Courts of law pronouncing upon the eviction of tenants occupying the floors above the relevant premises, the upper floors standing impermissibly subjected to reconstruction, permitting occurrence of eventuality whereof would tantamount to rendition of a grossly unwarranted order. 9. 9. Be that as it may, the learned Appellate Authority had dispelled the vigour of the aforesaid pleadings constituted in the apposite rent petition also it had blunted the effect of the testification of PW-2, who had in his relevant testification voiced qua the relevant reconstruction activity warranting its commencement from its base, whereat the demised premises stand located, significantly also it drove rough shod qua the factum of floors above the ground floor standing occupied by a tenant in respect whereto no executable decree of eviction stood pronounced by competent courts of law, floors whereof would collapse, if the decree impugned herebefore stands affirmed leading to the ill-fate of tenants occupying them hence ipso fato without authority of law hence suffering eviction therefrom, whereupon, it has committed a gross illegality or impropriety. Contrarily, the effect of the aforesaid pleadings unfolded in the apposite petition for eviction also the effect of the testification of the aforesaid PW-2, is qua the choosing besides selecting by the respondents herein, of the petitioner herein/tenant for his eviction from the demised premises, being palpably construable to be an invention or a concoction bereft of any virtues of any bonafides inhering in the respondents herein, for hence theirs seeking his eviction therefrom on the score of the ill-health of the building besides on the score of its dilapidated condition, in a part whereof the demised premises stand located, hence, its thereupon warranting its immediate reconstruction, for facilitation whereof, the eviction of the tenant is imperative. Resultantly, contrived besides invented grounds for eviction,on facet aforesaid, of the petitioner herein/tenant from the demised premises, cannot come to be either sustained or countenanced by this Court. 10. Dehors the above, the respondents herein are co-owners along with other co-owners in the building, in part whereof, the petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondents herein, yet other co-owners stood not impleaded as co-petitioners with the respondents herein. 10. Dehors the above, the respondents herein are co-owners along with other co-owners in the building, in part whereof, the petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondents herein, yet other co-owners stood not impleaded as co-petitioners with the respondents herein. Though, the non impleadment of other co-owners along with the respondents herein, as co-petitioners in the apposite eviction petition would not preempt, the learned Courts below to pronounce a conditional order of eviction upon the petitioner herein/tenant, significantly, when the petitioner herein uncontrovertedly attorns only qua the respondents herein, yet with surfacing of evidence herebefore unveiling qua the entire building warranting reconstruction, whereupon, its commercial utility would stand enhanced also when on its reconstruction it would hence rear incremental pecuniary benefits qua the co-owners of the building yet uncontrovertedly with the relevant building standing located within municipal limits, whereupon, with the ground for eviction of the tenant hereat residing in a part thereof, standing strived besides anchored upon its warranting its reconstruction, for absolute success whereof, all the co-owners stood enjoined to obtain the apposite sanction for its reconstruction from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, whereas, with no sanction for the relevant purpose standing obtained therefrom by all the co-owners of the building renders the apposite ground, whereupon, the respondents herein seek eviction of the tenant from the demised premises to be also construable to be contrived or invented. However, though, even want of apposite sanction by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, for the relevant purpose would not forestall Courts of law to pass a conditional decree qua eviction of the tenant herein from the building, building whereof is concerted to, on their eviction therefrom, to be rebuilt, yet, the effect of non joinder of all the co-owners of the relevant building by the respondents herein as co-petitioners with them in the apposite eviction petition, when construed in tandem with the factum of Ex.PW4/A comprising the plan for reconstruction of the building submitted for approval before the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, not holding the signatures of all the co-owners nor any affidavit standing placed on record, of all the co-owners, holding articulations qua theirs consenting to the submission of Ex.PW4/A before the Municipal Corporation, Shimla for its approval therefrom, wherefrom, it appears qua the omission of joinder by the respondents herein of other co-owners as co-petitioners in the apposite eviction petition, standing engendered by theirs in their relevant endeavour of rebuilding it, not holding their consensus ad idem qua its rebuilding nor also hence the aspiration of the respondents herein being for their monetary betterment. Contrarily, it appears qua theirs with utmost stealth contriving a pretextual ground of eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant from the demised premises. Moreover, the effect of the respondents herein not obtaining the signatures of the co-owners on Ex.PW4/A nor tendering into evidence their affidavits unveiling qua theirs consenting for the reconstruction of the building , renders open an inference qua, thereupon, Ex.PW4/A suffering rejection from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, whereas, its approval therefrom would facilitate this Court to render a conditional decree of eviction upon the tenant/petitioner herein, corollary whereof is dehors the non approval yet of Ex.PW 4/A by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, no conditional decree of eviction of the tenant being amenable for pronouncement, its submission therebefore lacking the consent of other co-owners, whereupon, it would suffer rejection hence rendering the ground qua reconstruction of the relevant building to be illusory besides unwarranted. 11. The above discussion unfolds qua the conclusions arrived by the learned Appellate Authority standing not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned Appellate Authority has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 12. 11. The above discussion unfolds qua the conclusions arrived by the learned Appellate Authority standing not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned Appellate Authority has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 12. In view of above discussion, the present petition is allowed and the judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 37-S/14 of 2013/2011 on 11.11.2014 is set aside. In sequel, the order rendered by learned Rent Controller, Shimla, in Rent Petition No. 76/2 of 2008 on 17.10.2011 is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.