JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Under concurrently recorded verdicts, both the learned Courts below, ordered for the eviction of the tenants/petitioners herein from the demised premises. The tenants/ petitioners herein being aggrieved therefrom, hence for begetting their reversal have instituted the instant Civil Revision Petition before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landlord/respondent herein filed an application under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as the Act), for eviction of the tenants/petitioners herein, on theirs being tenants in one room residential set situated in second floor of building No. 73, Lower Bazar, Shimla, on the grounds of the tenants being in arrears of rent with effect from April 1, 1990 and on the grounds of the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation as well as the bona-fide requirement of the landlord for rebuilding and reconstructing the demised premises. 3. The petitioner herein/tenant contested the petition and filed reply thereto, wherein, he had taken preliminary objection qua maintainability and it stand not verified in accordance with law. On merits, it is denied that the building is in dilapidated condition or is an old one. It is also denied that the building is required bona-fide by the landlord for rebuilding and reconstruction. Arrears of rent are also denied. 4. The landlord/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the tenants/petitioners herein, wherein, he denied the contents of the reply and re-affirmed and reasserted 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 demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation? OPP 2. Whether the demised premises is required for bona-fide rebuilding and reconstruction, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 5. Whether the petition is not properly verified? 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 landlord/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the tenants/petitioners herein before the learned Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 7. 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 landlord/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the tenants/petitioners herein before the learned Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 7. Now the tenants/petitioners herein have instituted the instant Civil Revision Petition before this Court for hence assailing the findings recorded in its impugned order by the learned Appellate Authority. 8. The order of eviction of the tenants/petitioners herein from the demised premises, ensued on theirs evidently falling into arrears of rent in respect thereto also the reason for the concurrent orders being pronounced for his/theirs being evicted from the demised premises “stood anvilled”, upon potent evidence existing on record with respect to the landlord/respondent herein bona-fide requiring the building, in portion whereof the demised premises occur, for holding “it” to rebuilding and reconstruction. Even though, the landlord had sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on account of its being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, also in proof of the issue cast upon the aforesaid ground reared in the petition instituted by the landlord before the learned Rent Controller concerned, the landlord had depended upon a report, comprised in Ex.PW2/A, wherein the age of the building is communicated also it is echoed therein that cracks occurring in the outer walls of the structure. However, the aforesaid report, comprised in Ex.PW2/A, was discarded by both the learned Courts below, given its author, who appeared as PW-2, in his cross-examination testifying that in his making Ex.PW2/A, he did not ingress into the building, for hence, his being capacitated to befittingly depose that it was unfit for human habitation besides also the aforesaid communication standing not purveyed in Ex.PW2/A. With the landlord and his family residing on the top floor of the building, also the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, “not declaring the building to be unsafe, befittingly constrained both the learned Courts below “to pronounce” that the revelations occurring in Ex.PW2/A, solitarily with respect to the age of the building rather being unbefitting to form a conclusion that hence its constituting cogent evidence with respect to the demised premises standing rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The appreciation of the aforesaid evidence adduced on the issue, struck with respect to the demised premises becoming unsafe and unfit for human habitation, thereupon, the tenants/petitioners herein being evicted therefrom, does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity. 9. Dehors the factum of findings upon issue No.1 standing rendered against the respondent herein/landlord, would not ipso facto yield a conclusion that thereupon the findings in the affirmative rendered concurrently by both the learned courts below upon the issue struck with respect to the landlord bona-fide requiring the building in portion whereof, the demised premises occur, for holding it to rebuilding and reconstruction, hence, also standing stained with any vice. The reason for rendering a conclusion, that any adversarial findings rendered upon the issue struck with respect to the demised premises being unsafe and unfit for human habitation “not” per se precluding the learned Courts below to render affirmative findings upon the relevant issue struck with respect to the building in portion whereof the demised premises occur, “being” bonafidely required by the landlord, for holding it to rebuilding and reconstruction, “stands” galvanized from the factum “of” if the building holding therein the demised premises “is” strived to be rebuilt or reconstructed for its yielding pecuniary dividend to the landlord, “given” its evidently standing located in a commercially viable zone of the town, as is the location of the demised premises, thereupon, the prospects of the landlord, to on its reconstruction, hence, earn handsome commercial dividends therefrom, vis-à-vis the hitherto pittance rent “he” receives from the tenants occupying the demised premises, occurring therein, thereupon his concert for holding it to rebuilding and reconstruction, would evidently carry traits besides elements of its being construable of hence the landlord, bona-fide requiring it for the relevant purpose. Consequently, “despite both” the learned counsel below rendering adversarial findings vis-a-vis the landlord with respect to the demised premises being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, yet thereupon they stood not fettered to render affirmative findings on the issue struck with respect to the landlord bona-fide requiring the building wherein the demised premises also stand housed, for holding it for reconstruction and rebuilding, evidently given the factum established by him “of his” holding the requisite finances for rebuilding it besides given his submitting the apposite plan, comprised in Ex.PW2/D, to the authorities concerned, for his hence obtaining approvals therefrom. 10. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the tenants/petitioners herein, makes a vehement submission before this Court, that the (a) land whereon the building is standing being not owned by the landlord/respondent herein; (b) one of the co-owners raising objections with respect to the institution of the apposite petition against the tenants for his/theirs being ordered to be evicted from the demised premises; (c) owner of the building adjoining the demised premises, stepping into witness box as RW-2, wherein, he testified that if the building wherein the demised premises occur is demolished, it will cause damage to his building. (d) The building standing evidently located in a core area, hence entailing the consequence of the apposite plan, comprised in Ex.PW2/D, submitted for approval to the authorities concerned, obviously suffering the ill-fate of its rejection, hence, thereupon, he contends that the petition for eviction founded upon the landlord/respondent therein bona-fide requiring the building housing the demised premises “for holding it” for reconstruction and rebuilding, founders, rather it is visible that the petition for eviction is stained with a vice of malafides. The apposite oppositions occurring at point (c) hereinabove, with respect to the tenacity of the concurrently recorded orders of eviction recorded upon the tenants/petitioners herein by the learned Courts below, hold no tenacity, nor are unespousable hereat, given their tenacity obviously being expected to be gauged by the authorities concerned, who proceed to or are engaged in the process of recording apposite orders upon the building plan, comprised in Ex.PW2/D. Significantly, also when the authorities concerned, who stand seized with Ex.PW2/D are also expected to deal with the aforesaid espousals reared here before by the counsel, for the tenants/petitioners herein, it would be unbefitting to pronounce any decision thereon, given any recording of any finding upon the tenacity of the aforesaid espousals addressed before this Court hence “ultimately impinging” upon decisions, in accordance with law, as would stand arrived at by the authorities concerned “upon” Ex.PW2/D. 11. The apposite objection reared by RW-2, that in case the building of the landlord/respondent herein is permitted to demolished or subjected to reconstruction and rebuilding, in that event, his building, building whereof adjoins the building of the landlord/respondent herein, would suffer damage, obviously falters, given its standing belied by Ex.PW2/B, wherein no joint wall stands reflected to occur intra se the relevant buildings/structures reflected therein. Non existence in Ex.PW2/Bof any joint wall separating the building wherein, in part whereof the demised premises are located, from the building adjoining thereof of RW-2, “is” personificatory of the landlord/respondent herein intending to erect his building without his deriving any support from the adjoining building of RW-2, thereupon, also the apprehension of RW-2 that if the building wherein the demised premises is located, is permitted to be dismantled, it would entail his building adjoining thereto “suffering damage”, being hence wholly mitigated besides allayed. 12. The contention of the counsel, for the petitioners herein/tenants, that given the relevant building being located in a core area, whereat there being a complete interdiction against approvals being meted vis-a-vis Ex.PW2/D, thereupon, the ground reared by the landlord that he bona-fide requires “it” for rebuilding and reconstruction, renders it to beget a stain of malafides, hence, this Court being constrained to render disaffirmative findings upon the aforesaid issue. However, the aforesaid submission warrants rejection, as it stands propounded by this Court in a judgment recorded in Naresh Kumar and others versus Surinder Paul, 2001(2) Shim.L.C. 337 , that the mere location of the apposite building in a core area not per se dis-entitling the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant holding occupation in a part thereof, especially when even in core areas, approvals for holding reconstruction or rebuilding activities, “can be” granted by the State Government. Since, the site plan is pending for approval before the authorities concerned also when the State Government may grant approval to the apposite plan submitted by the landlord, plan whereof is comprised in Ex.PW2/D, thereupon, it would be unbefitting to conclude that merely given the apposite building existing in a core area, thereupon, site plan embodied in Ex.PW2/D suffering the ill-fate of its rejection, per se holding any strength, nor therefrom an inference being derivable, that per se thereupon the petition for eviction hence standing stained with a vice of malafides. Since, the relevant building is evidently located within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, thereupon with a statutory obligation standing entailed upon the landlord, “to” prior to his holding it, to reconstruction or rebuilding, his receiving consent in respect thereto “from” the appropriate government, whereas, the apposite building plan comprised in Ex.PW2/D, is still awaiting sanction being purveyed thereon by the authorities concerned, thereupon till the authorities concerned purvey/mete sanction upon the relevant building plan borne on “Ex.PW2/D”, the concurrently recorded verdicts may not be put to execution. Furthermore, the tenants/petitioners, if they nowat evidently hold possession of the demised premises they in accordance with law also within the permissible ambit of the decisions of this Court reported in Jaswinder Singh and another versus Kedar Nath and another, Latest HLJ (2012) (HP) 1452 and Chaman Lal Bali versus State of H.P. and another, ILR 2016 (HP) 1450, “on” the relevant building being reconstructed/rebuilt, be entitled to re-induction therein in an area equivalent to the area of the nowat demised premises. 13. The above discussion unfolds qua the conclusions arrived by both the learned Courts below are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the apposite findings, both the learned Courts below have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 14. In view of above discussion, the present petition is dismissed and the verdicts impugned hereat are affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.