JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. In this petition order dated 9.4.2010, passed by learned appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No.66-S/14 of 2009, is under challenge. Learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the respondent-tenant and upheld the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller (Court No.6), Shimla in a petition filed under Section 14(1) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act in short, registered as Case No.45/2 of 2007. 2. The respondent-herein is landlord. He is one of the co-owners of the residential premises known as ‘Chor View’, Sanjauli, Shimla-6. He has rented out one set comprising two rooms, one glazed verandah, Kitchen, Bathroom and latrine to the respondent-tenant. The rough plan is Ex.PW- 3/C. The eviction of the respondent-tenant has been sought on the ground that the demised premises is bonafidely required by him for the purpose of rebuilding of old structure, which is not possible without getting the same vacated. The rebuilding, according to the landlord, is required in view of the premises in question is 100 years old and had outlived its life. Another tenant is Smt. Santosh, against her also the eviction petition is stated to be filed. The petitioner-landlord further submits that the building will be reconstructed after pulling down the existing old structure made by Dhajji/bricks and to replace the same with new RCC structure. 3. The respondent-tenant has resisted and contested the petition. In preliminary, the objections that the petitioner-landlord has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and that eviction petition has been filed with an ulterior and malafide motive to coerce the respondent to increase the rent or purchase the demised premises were raised. On merits, while denying the case as set out in the petition, it is submitted that the petitioner-landlord has suppressed the facts qua a portion of the building he has already sold to the tenant, who have now become exclusive owners thereof. Such sets are adjoining to the sets owned and possessed by the petitioner-landlord. On merits, while denying the case as set out in the petition, it is submitted that the petitioner-landlord has suppressed the facts qua a portion of the building he has already sold to the tenant, who have now become exclusive owners thereof. Such sets are adjoining to the sets owned and possessed by the petitioner-landlord. It is also submitted that the entire construction of the building known as ‘Chor view’ is interconnected and dependent upon the side walls of other sets, therefore, the rebuilding /reconstruction of entire structure is not possible, unless the owners of adjoining sets having exclusive rights of their respective sets, agree to vacate the same. The floor of the building is also wooden, interlinked with each other to provide stability to entire structure. Any attempt to remove the same will result in collapse of entire structure, including the portion of other owners i.e. Kanta Dube and Tilak Raj etc. The respondent-tenant also apprehends that in such a situation the Municipal Corporation, Shimla will permit reconstruction/ rebuilding of the demised premises. 4. In rejoinder, the contents of the preliminary objections have been denied being wrong and on merits the case as set out in the petition reiterated. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant is entitled for the eviction order on the ground that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction as alleged? OPA 2. Whether the tenant is liable to vacate the premises as the same is unsafe and unfit for human habitation, as alleged? OPA 3. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the applicants have not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the applicants have suppressed the material facts, as alleged? OPR 6. Relief. 6. The parties were put to trial on the issues so framed. The petitioner landlord in turn has examined AW-1 Jaman Dass, working as Mate in the AP Branch of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, who has produced the record of the building. The petitioner-landlord Dayawant has also stepped into the witness box as AW-2. He has also examined Shri Nika Ram, alleged GPA of the respondent as AW-3. AW-4 H.S. Bisht is the so called expert witness. 7. The petitioner-landlord Dayawant has also stepped into the witness box as AW-2. He has also examined Shri Nika Ram, alleged GPA of the respondent as AW-3. AW-4 H.S. Bisht is the so called expert witness. 7. The respondent, on the other hand, has himself stepped into the witness-box as RW-1 and examined one Somesh Kumar, RW-2 and Shri Bhupinder Singh Rishi as RW-3. Learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence available on record has thus accepted the rent petition and ordered the eviction of the respondent-tenant. Learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the order passed by learned rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. 8. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned in the present petition on several grounds including that the evidence available on record was not appreciated by both Courts below in its right perspective. As a matter of fact, main emphasis has been laid on the factum of the other co-sharers of the building and according to respondent-tenant, the petitioner-landlord cannot rebuild or reconstruct the building in his share without the sets in the building vacated by the co-owners and the other tenants. 9. This matter was partly heard during pre-lunch session in the presence of learned counsel representing the petitioner-landlord and partly during post lunch session, of course in her absence, who, no doubt, had prayed for adjournment on the ground to argue some other case, however, declined. The matter, therefore, was heard further in the presence of learned vice counsel. 10. On going through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record, there is no dispute so as to the petitioner-landlord is one of the co-sharers in the building known as ‘Chor View’, situated at Sanjauli, Shimla-6. There is again no controversy so as to other tenants are also occupants of this building. Nothing is there in the petition as to what will happen to the sets belonging to other co-owners and the tenants in case the petitioner-landlord is permitted to demolish his portion of the building for reconstruction. Though in the petition, it has been submitted that the building will be reconstructed after its demolition. As a matter of fact, reconstruction of any building is not possible nor safe and in the interest of other habitants unless the same is got vacated as a whole. 11. Though in the petition, it has been submitted that the building will be reconstructed after its demolition. As a matter of fact, reconstruction of any building is not possible nor safe and in the interest of other habitants unless the same is got vacated as a whole. 11. Although the petitioner-landlord while in the witness-box has expressed his ignorance that Smt. Kanta Dube and Tilak Raj were his tenants and that the sets with them stand sold to them, however, AW-3 Nika Ram, who claims himself to be the General Power of Attorney of the petitioner-landlord has admitted that he himself sold the sets to few of the tenants, who were residing in the building in question. He has named such tenants to be Smt. Kanta Dube and Janak Raj. As per his further admission the set belonging to Kanta Dube is adjacent to that of the respondent-tenant. He further admits that the walls of both sets are common. He also admits that roof and floor of both sets are also common and of wooden planks. Though the petitioner and AW-3 and for that matter the expert AW-4, all have denied the suggestion that without getting the set of Kanta Dube vacated, the set in the use and occupation of respondent-tenant and the remaining sets in the building in his share cannot be demolished or reconstructed. However, even a layman will also understand that without getting the old building vacated, it is not safe to demolish and re-construct the specific portion thereof and rather doing so will be at the risk and costs of other owners/tenants of the remaining portion of the said building. This Court in a recent judgment dated 26.07.2018, passed in Civil Revision No. 27/2006 titled Smt. Mansa Devi (since deceased) through her legal representatives V. Krishan Pal Sood (since deceased) through his legal representatives, in an identical situation has held as under: “ 12. Admittedly, Mr. M.P. Gupta, is the owner of top floor of that portion of the building, the repair/reconstruction whereof is required to be carried out. Admittedly the repair/re-construction is only possible in case the building is got vacated. It is the own admission of the petitioner-landlord that no petition for vacation of the top floor by said Shri M.P. Gupta has been filed by him. Admittedly the repair/re-construction is only possible in case the building is got vacated. It is the own admission of the petitioner-landlord that no petition for vacation of the top floor by said Shri M.P. Gupta has been filed by him. True it is that in his examination-in-chief it is stated that said Shri M.P. Gupta during negotiation with him has assured that he will vacate the top floor in the event of reconstruction of that portion of the building. The own statement of the petitioner, however, cannot be believed as a gospel truth. As a matter of fact, had M.P. Gupta been in favour of vacation of the top floor of the building in his possession the petitioner-landlord would have produced him and examined as a witness in this petition. In such a situation, the petitioner-landlord has failed to make out a case that the building is in dilapidated condition and the same can only be restored to its good condition only by way of reconstruction. 14……...Otherwise also, the judgment passed by learned lower Appellate Court based upon the happening of certain events i.e. the sanction of the plan by the competent authority and on consideration of the undertaking, if any, given by Shri M.P. Gupta aforesaid qua vacation of top floor of the building is not executable.” 12. The claim of the landlord in Mansa Devi’s case supra was, therefore, on sound footing as compared to the case in hand because there the co-owner Sh. M.P. Gupta as per landlords’ case had allegedly assured to vacate the top floor on obtaining order for re-construction of the demised premises which, however, is not the position in the case in hand because the respondent-landlord has not obtained consent of his co-owners namely, Kanta Dube and Janak Raj nor that of other tenants. Therefore, in view of the legal position discussed hereinabove, in the present case, no order could have been passed qua eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the ground of the same bonafidely required for the purpose of rebuilding and re-construction. 13. Otherwise also, cogent and reliable evidence has not come on record to show that the building is in a dilapidated condition, hence needs re-construction. It is stated by AW-1 Sh. 13. Otherwise also, cogent and reliable evidence has not come on record to show that the building is in a dilapidated condition, hence needs re-construction. It is stated by AW-1 Sh. Jamna Dass, Mate A.P. Branch Municipal Corporation, Shimla that as per record, he produced no notice is yet issued either to the landlord or the tenants that the building is unsafe and not worth living. Notice, according to him, has not been issued for the reason that building is in good condition. Though, stated again that he had no personal knowledge qua exact condition of the building, however, as per record he produced, nothing is there to suggest that no notice qua the condition of the building as not good has ever been issued by the Municipal Corporation. He has also stated that as per record even landlord has also not submitted the map qua re-construction of the building for approval to the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the testimony of the respondent-landlord that he has submitted the map for approval is highly doubtful. 14. AW-2 the landlord and AW-3 Nika Ram have also admitted that they have not received any notice from Municipal Corporation, Shimla qua the building being unsafe or unfit for human habitation. As per their version, the building rather is joint property of all the owners being not partitioned amongst the owners who are 3-4 in number. 15. There is also no cogent and reliable evidence to show as to what is the exact age of the building. While in the petition, its age is given as 100 years, according to respondent-tenant its age is 60-65 years. The suggestion in this behalf put to AW-2 and AW-3 is denied by them being wrong. The fact remains that what is the exact age of the building ‘Chor View’ is not proved satisfactorily on record. It is not the case of the respondent-landlord that he himself constructed this building. Therefore, how he could have given the age of the building as 100 years is not understandable. The spot inspection report Ext. PW-4/A having been prepared on the basis of inspection conducted behind the back of the petitioner-tenant cannot be believed to be true. Otherwise also, such self-styled reports are being produced in evidence by the landlords in the cases of this nature. The spot inspection report Ext. PW-4/A having been prepared on the basis of inspection conducted behind the back of the petitioner-tenant cannot be believed to be true. Otherwise also, such self-styled reports are being produced in evidence by the landlords in the cases of this nature. The evidence as has come on record by way of statement of petitioner-tenant Satpal and also that of RW-2 Suresh Kumar and RW- 3 Bhupinder Singh that without getting the whole building vacated, its repair is not possible, is nearer to the factual position. They, however, have no objection in case the landlord reconstructs their portion of building by maintaining a gap between the wall of their side by raising construction of new wall. The further observations in the impugned order that obtaining the consent of other co-owners is a matter between them and the landlord, lead to the only conclusion that the judgment passed is not executable. 16. For all the reasons discussed hereinabove, this petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the rent petition dismissed. No orders as to costs.