JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since, both these petitions, arise, out of a common verdict, pronounced, by the learned Appellate Authority-(IV), Shimla, upon, Rent Appeal No.38-S/14 of 2013/2011, and, upon Cross-objection No.7-S/14 of 2015, hence, both are liable to be disposed off by a common verdict. 2. Civil Revision No.136 of 2015, stands directed against the judgment recorded by the learned Appellate Authority upon Rent Appeal No. 38-S/14 of 2013/2011, whereby, the aforesaid appeal preferred, before it, by the tenant/petitioner herein, against, the order of the learned Rent Controller stood dismissed, whereas, Civil Revision No. 137 of 2015, stands directed against the judgment recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, upon, Cross-objection No.7-S/14 of 2015, whereby, the learned First Appellate Court, allowed, the aforesaid cross-objections, preferred before it, by the landlord/respondent herein, directed against the rider put forth by the learned Rent Controller, while, allowing the rent petition instituted there before, by the landlord/respondent herein. 3. 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 tenant/petitioner herein from the demised premises bearing Set No.14, Ground Floor, Sudagar Bhawan, House No.103, Sanjauli, Shimla. H.P. It is averred that the petitioner herein respondent is tenant in the aforesaid premises and he ceased to occupy the premises in question and had shifted to his newly constructed building. The premises in question was rented out to tenant in the year 1970. The premises in question is lying locked for a long time. The tenant has also raised illegal construction in the back of tenanted set, hence the landlady has filed the petition for eviction on the following grounds:- (I) That the tenant has constructed his own residential building known as “Sharma Niwas” near Dhingoo Borri at Frood which is situated in Urban area. (ii) That the tenant has also ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for last two years prior to the filing of the present petition without any sufficient cause. (iii) That the tenant has not paid rent of the said premises since 1.4.1987. (iv) That the building in question is more than 100 years old and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The entire building is in dilapidated condition, therefore, the building in question is required by the landlady for rebuilding and reconstruction. (iii) That the tenant has not paid rent of the said premises since 1.4.1987. (iv) That the building in question is more than 100 years old and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The entire building is in dilapidated condition, therefore, the building in question is required by the landlady for rebuilding and reconstruction. It is alleged that the respondent herein is exclusive owner and landlady of the premises in question, who is entitled to receive rent of the building in question. Therefore, it is prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the landlady and against the tenant to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises in their occupation. 4. The petitioner herein/tenant contested the petition and filed reply thereto, wherein, he had taken preliminary objection qua locus standi, cause of action, estoppel, jurisdiction, bad for non joinder of necessary parties and res judicata etc.. On merits, the contents of the petition are denied. It is denied that the respondent herein is the landlady of the premises. It is submitted that she is only entitled to receive the rent from the tenant as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of H.P., of 5.10.1993 in CMP No.267 of 1983 in C.S. No.32 of 1982. It is also denied that tenant is not residing in the address given in the title of the petition. It is submitted that tenant is residing in Set No.14, Saudagar Bhawan near Sanjauli Chowk. It is also denied that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in question. It is denied that sewerage system stood converted from dry latrines illegally and uauthorisedly. It is submitted that the same was converted when the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. directed to convert the same. It is admitted that tenant used to pay rent @ Rs.170/- per annum. It is also denied that the building is 100 years old but it is submitted that it is not more than 65-70 years old. It is also denied that tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises for the last two years prior to the filing of the present petition without any sufficient cause. It is the husband of the landlady, who refused to accept the rent from the tenant. It is also denied that tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises for the last two years prior to the filing of the present petition without any sufficient cause. It is the husband of the landlady, who refused to accept the rent from the tenant. It is also denied that the building in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the entire premises is in dilapidated condition. It is also denied that after the death of Smt. Geeta Devi, the landlady is the exclusive owner o the premises in question. 5. The landlord/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the tenant/petitioner herein, wherein, she denied the contents of the reply and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the petition. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the respondents has not paid the rent of the demised premises since 1.4.1987, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the rented premises for the last two years without any sufficient cause, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the demised premises are bonafide required for rebuilding and reconstruction, as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the respondent has constructed his own residential building, as alleged? OPR 6. Whether the petitioner is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR. 7. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition?OPR. 8. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition due to his own acts and conduct, as alleged? OPR. 9. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this petition? OPR. 10. Whether the petition is hit by constructive res judicata, as alleged? OPR. 11. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR. 12. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition due to abandonment? OPR. 13. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition preferred there before, by, the landlady/respondent herein. OPR. 11. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR. 12. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition due to abandonment? OPR. 13. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition preferred there before, by, the landlady/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the tenant/petitioner herein, before, the learned Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, whereas, it allowed the cross-objections, referred before it, by the landlady, whereby, it removed the rider put forth, by the learned Rent Controller, in the operative part of its order. 8. Now the tenant/petitioner herein has instituted the instant Civil Revision Petitions, before, this Court for hence assailing the findings recorded in its impugned judgment/order, by the learned Appellate Authority. 9. Upon apposite receipts, comprised in Ex.PW3/B, one Narinder Sharma, admitted, the occurrence of his signatures thereon. The effect thereof, is, of qua thereupon the tenant acquiescing, to, the factum of one Sunaina Devi, being the landlady, of, the demised premises. The further corollary thereof is qua hence the mandate of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, where within, an estoppel is created upon the tenant, against, his denying the title of the landlord, hence squarely begetting its attraction hereat, with, a further sequel of it being firmly established, of there existing a valid relationship, of landlord/landlady, and, tenant interse one Narinder Sharma, and, one Smt. Sunaina Devi. Provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, read as under:- “114 Court may presume existence of certain facts. —The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. —The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations The Court may presume— (a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession; (b) That an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars; (c) That a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration; (d) That a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence; (e) That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed; (f) That the common course of business has been followed in particular cases; (g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; (h) That if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him; (i) That when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged.” 10. Both the learned Courts below, had assigned sanctity, vis-a-vis, the apt report, as, comprised in Ex.PW2/A, and, as stands proven by PW-2, latter whereof, during the course of recording of his deposition, has made a candid testification, qua the outer wall, of, the building being of stone, (i) and, mud and the aforesaid construction material now at outliving its utility, (ii) and, has further deposed, of the walls of the building, being Dhaji walls, whereon cracks occur, (iii) besides the floor also developing cracks, and, in addition, he has also testified, of, the normal span, of, the building being of 40-45 years, whereas, the building in question being aged 100 years, (iv) thereupon, it out-spanning its normal logevity, hence, it being unfit, and, unsafe for habitation. Contrarily the deposition of RW-5, one Smt. J.K. Mahindru, though, relied upon by the tenant, yet, with his making a clear deposition, in his cross-examination, that without its being vacated, it being not amenable for reconstruction, hence on anvil thereof, also, the landlady, rather has cogently proven, qua the reconstruction of the building, being imperative, and, hence obviously, for facilitating its reconstruction, the eviction of the tenants, being both, just and imperative. Furthermore, the proven ground, of the demised premises, hence, warranting reconstruction, thereupon, for facilitations thereof, the evictions therefrom, of, the tenants, is, rather imperative, (I) per se, when also hence rather embodies there within the apt bonafides of the landlady, vis-a-vis, upon its reconstruction, hers being hence equipped to rear handsome dividends, therefrom, than the one reared earlier thereto, thereupon, this Court, is, constrained to vindicate, the genuineness besides bonafides thereof, (ii) more so, when no evidence has been adduced, with, any clear display therein, of the aforestated grounds, being, gripped with any vices, of invention or concoctions. 11. Both the learned Courts below, even vis-a-vis, the ground appertaining, to the petitioner herein/tenant, ceasing to occupy the demised premises, for, the last two years, had, upon consideration of the evidence adduced thereof, had, concurrently concluded, of the aforesaid ground also being firmly proven. The anvil of the aforesaid findings, stood rested upon, the factum, of the respondent making an admission, of, his raising/completing construction of his house, in the year 2001, (i) thereupon, it was aptly concluded, by both the learned Courts below, that hence the tenant rather rendered himself amenable, for an order of eviction being pronounced against him, dehors his not shifting to the newly constructed accommodation. The aforesaid reasons, as, assigned by both the learned Court below, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid grounds of eviction, is, anvilled upon apt cogent evidence adduced thereon, and, warrants, no, interference. 12. Undisputedly, the building in portion whereof, the demised premises exist, is located in a core area. The aforesaid reasons, as, assigned by both the learned Court below, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid grounds of eviction, is, anvilled upon apt cogent evidence adduced thereon, and, warrants, no, interference. 12. Undisputedly, the building in portion whereof, the demised premises exist, is located in a core area. The contention of the counsel, for the petitioner herein/tenant, that given the relevant building, being located in a core area, whereat there being a complete interdiction, against, approvals being meted vis-à-vis rebuildings, and, reconstructions, of, the relevant building, (i) thereupon, the ground reared by the landlords, of, theirs bonafide requiring “it” for rebuilding and reconstructing it, renders it to beget a stain of malafides, (ii) hence, this Court being constrained to render dis-affirmative 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 , (iii) 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 landlady in her deposition, has testified, of hers taking steps, for, getting the site plan sanctioned, from, the M.C., thereupon when submission, of, site plans by the landlady to the authorities concerned, may entail, all the concerned authorities hence to mete or grant approvals to the apposite submitted plan, (iv) thereupon, it would be unbefitting to conclude that merely, given, the apposite building existing in a core area, hence, the site plan, on its presentation by the landlord/landlady, to the authorities concerned, ipso facto, rather suffering the ill-fate of its rejection, not, per se holding any strength, nor therefrom any inference being derivable, that per se, thereupon, the petition for eviction, hence, standing stained, with any 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 landlady, “to” prior to hers holding it, to reconstruction or rebuilding activity(ies), hers receiving consent in respect thereto “from” the appropriate government, (v) whereas, with the apposite building plan, is, still awaiting its presentation or sanction being purveyed thereon, by all the authorities concerned, thereupon, till the authorities concerned purvey/mete sanction, upon, the relevant building plan, the concurrently recorded verdicts, may not, be put to coercive execution. 13. Furthermore, the tenant/petitioner, if they/he nowat evidently, hold, possession of the demised premises, thereupon, he/they, may, in accordance with law, and, 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, “shall” upon the relevant building being reconstructed/rebuilt, be entitled to re-induction therein, in an area equivalent, to the area of the nowat demised premises. 14. The above discussion unfolds qua all the conclusions, save and except the herein above discussion, as, arrived by both the learned Courts below, with respect to the imperativeness, of, eviction of the tenant/petitioner from the demised premises, on account of bonafide requirement of the landlord of the building, in part whereof, the demised premises exist, to rebuild it, being 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. 15. In view of above discussion, both the instant petitions are dismissed, and, the eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises, on the ground, of the building being bonafidely required, by the landlords, for its rebuilding and reconstruction, is affirmed, yet subject to the condition that the petitioner/tenant shall be evicted, from, the demised premises, only, upon production, of, the necessary statutory sanctions/approvals, granted by all the competent authorities concerned. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.