JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions and as the same have arisen from a common judgment, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner is the tenant, who aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned appellate authority has filed the present revision petition. 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that respondent-landlady filed a petition under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Act) against the petitioner/tenant regarding the premises known as ''Violet Cottage'', Below Bus Stand, Shimla, consisting of two rooms and toilet in the first floor, which was let out to the petitioner/tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The eviction was primarily sought on the ground that the demised premises is bonafidely required for reconstruction of entire building on old lines which could not be carried out without getting the same vacated from tenant. The building was stated to be more than hundred years and in dilapidated condition. 4. The tenant contested the eviction petition by filing reply wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties and the premises being in good condition were raised. On merits, it was pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs.50/- per month and the demised premises were a pucca structure and fit for human habitation. 5. On pleadings of the parties, learned trial Rent Controller framed the following issues: "1. Whether the petitioner bonafide requires the demised premises qua reconstruction, if so its effect?OPP 2. Whether the demised premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, if so, its effect?OPP 3. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since January, 2007 and is also liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum, if so, its effect?OPP 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? 5. Relief." 6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of its having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and bonafide requirement and on arrears of rent of Rs. 18,790/- w.e.f. 01.01.2007 to 31.03.2016. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? 5. Relief." 6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of its having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and bonafide requirement and on arrears of rent of Rs. 18,790/- w.e.f. 01.01.2007 to 31.03.2016. However, it was further directed that the eviction order passed would not be put to execution unless the respondent / landlady produces before executing court the building plan duly sanctioned/approved by the competent authority and it would be (shall be) open to the respondent/tenant to apply for re-entry into the building in accordance with proviso (c) Section 14 (3) introduced by the amendment Act, 2009. The petitioner/tenant was also directed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.18,790/- to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of the order failing which the landlady was held entitled for possession of the demised premises on the ground of arrears of rent as well. 7. Aggrieved by the order of learned Rent Controller both the parties i.e. landlady and tenant filed separate appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlady and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller putting the rider regarding the submission of approved site plan was set aside and the eviction petition was allowed as a whole and the tenant was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and the building in question was required bonafidely for the rebuilding and reconstruction and rest of the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed. Whereas the appeal filed by the tenant whereby he had assailed the findings of the learned Rent Controller came to be dismissed. 8. The petitioner/tenant has filed the instant revision petitions inter alia on the ground that the eviction petition filed by the landlady was not maintainable at her instance alone as it was duly proved on record that there were other co-owners of the building. 8. The petitioner/tenant has filed the instant revision petitions inter alia on the ground that the eviction petition filed by the landlady was not maintainable at her instance alone as it was duly proved on record that there were other co-owners of the building. It was also averred that till and so long the maps of the building had not been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation after its rejection vide order dated 10.02.2010, the claim of the landlady could not be held to be bonafide and therefore, the learned Rent Controller had rightly placed an embargo or rider on the eviction of the tenant. 9. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Sood, Advocate, would argue that the grounds as raised by the petitioner do not fall for consideration as all these contentions already stand authoritatively decided by this Bench in Lin Kuei Tsan Versus Ashok Kumar Goel,2015 Supp1 HLR 2153. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 10. As regards the question of there being other co-owners of the building, it is more than settled that even one co-owner can maintain an eviction petition unless the tenant is in a position to point out any conflict of interest inter se the different co-owners. This aspect of the matter was dealt in para -19 of the judgment [Lin Kuei Tsan''s case (supra)] and it was held as under:- "19. Indisputably, the premises in question were owned by the landlord and his wife Kamlesh and this fact has infact been mentioned in the eviction petition, though not in so many words. Even otherwise, it is more than settled that one coowner can maintain an eviction petition. That apart, no prejudice has otherwise been shown to have been caused to the tenant by not arraying the co-owner so as to make a grievance. It was not disputed before me that the co-owner Smt. Kamlesh is no more in the land of living and, therefore, even this objection of the tenant therefore holds no water." 11. Now, as regards non approval or non-availability of the duly sanctioned proved map, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon para 37 of the judgment [Lin Kuei Tsan''s case (supra)], which reads thus:- "37. Now, as regards non approval or non-availability of the duly sanctioned proved map, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon para 37 of the judgment [Lin Kuei Tsan''s case (supra)], which reads thus:- "37. Further, this Court cannot also loose sight of the fact that it was the landlord who in order to prove and establish his bonafides had himself pleaded that he was taking steps for approval of the building plans on old lines and this was one of the considerations which weighed with the learned Appellate Authority to conclude that the need of the landlord was bonafide. Therefore, at this stage the landlord cannot be permitted to resile from his pleadings or else this would itself cast a doubt on his bonafides." 12. I am afraid this is not the ratio laid down in Lin Kuei Tsan''s case (supra) and these observations were preceded with the very vital observations made in para 36, which read as under:- "36. I have considered the aforesaid submission and I am of the considered opinion that no exception to such condition can be taken by the landlord, particularly, when the landlord has not chosen to assail these findings by filing a separate revision petition. Even otherwise this condition is otherwise just and equitable." 13. It is only in this background that this Court made the aforesaid observations in paragraph 37, which cannot be read in isolation because the ratio of the judgment, in fact, is contained in para 26 to 28 of the judgment, which reads thus:- "26. The question whether the requirement of sanctioned building plan is sine qua non before ordering the eviction of the tenant came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma vs. Vikas Sood and others , (2013) 5 SCC 243 and the Hon''ble Supreme Court after discussing the case of Jagat Pal Dhawan (supra), held that under Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act, the requirement of having a duly sanctioned plan was not a condition precedent for maintaining a petition for eviction. The relevant observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court are as follows: "13. In Jagat Pal Dhawan v. Kahan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. The relevant observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court are 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. 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 plant being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution. 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 plant 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 multi-storey 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." 27. Notably, the ratio of the judgment in Hari Dass Sharma''s case (supra) has been repeatedly 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 ShimLC 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. 28. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the submission of the tenant even if assumed to be correct that the landlord does not have a sanctioned plan, holds no water as the same is not a pre-requisite for maintaining a petition for eviction. 14. Apart from the above, it would be noticed that the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of its having "unfit and unsafe" for human habitation. Once that be so, then in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain in occupation of the premises that too only on the ground that the building plan had not been sanctioned by the local authorities i.e. Municipal Corporation, Shimla. After all, who would be accountable and responsible in case the premises or a part thereof collapse or any other untoward incident takes place on account of dilapidated condition of the premises. The Court cannot take any responsibility by passing an order that even though the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, yet the same should not be demolished, which may be dangerous for the life and property of the inhabitants. The Court cannot take any responsibility by passing an order that even though the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, yet the same should not be demolished, which may be dangerous for the life and property of the inhabitants. Public interest demands that building be vacated forthwith so as to avoid any untoward incident in future. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these revision petitions. Consequently, the same are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.