JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The tenant/petitioner herein, becoming aggrieved, from, the concurrently recorded verdicts of eviction, pronounced respectively against him, initially by the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, the latter affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority concerned, has, thereagainst constituted the extant civil revision petition before this Court, wherethrough, he strives for begetting reversals, of, the afore concurrent verdicts, as, recorded against him. 2. The landlord/respondent herein, had espoused, for eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein, from, the demised premises, on the grounds appertaining, to, (a) the demised premises becoming unsafe, and, unfit for human habitation, and, hence, theirs enjoining, their being dismantled; (b) his requiring the vacant possession, of, the demised premises, on the statutory ground, of, the building wherein it stands housed, becoming, required for reconstruction, and, rebuilding, and, the afore reconstruction or rebuilding, being amenable to be made, only after, demolitions taking place, and also after the tenant occupying, the, apt part of the building, being ordered to be evicted therefrom. He also claimed eviction, of, the tenant, from the demised premises, on, the statutory ground, of his, falling into arrears, of, rent. 3. The learned counsel appearing, for, the landlord/respondent herein fairly, submits before this Court that the afore last ground, does not, extantly survive, (i) as, the tenant, has within, the statutorily ordained period hence made deposits/payment, of, the pleaded arrears, of, rent. However, the contest which has emerged, inter se, the contesting litigants, appertains to the misappraisal, of, the evidence, by both the learned courts below, upon, the issues struck, upon, the afore referred grounds, rather preceding the ground, appertaining to the tenant, falling into, arrears of rent, vis-a-vis, the demised premises. The initial, afore ground pleaded, in, the eviction petition, and, appertaining to the demised premises, becoming unsafe, and, unfit, for human habitation, and, in consonance wherewith, an apt issue stood formulated, is, independent, to, and, from, the subsequent thereto ground, vis-a-vis, the, landlord requiring, the, demised premises, after its, becoming vacated, and, thereafter, upon, its becoming dismantled, and, hence, facilitating his rebuilding, it, naturally, for, empowering him, to rear therefrom handsome profits, which earlier thereto remained, rather unreared therefrom. Also though, there may be overlapping inter se the afore grounds of eviction. Also though, there may be overlapping inter se the afore grounds of eviction. However, the aspiration of the landlord, to seek, eviction of the tenant, from the demised premises, as, housed in the apposite building qua wherewith, he seeks a verdict, for, his, hence being, enabled to draw, the, statutory leverages, appertaining, to, the rebuilding, and, reconstruction, of, the same, cannot become yet baulked or frustrated, (ii) unless, the afore pleaded ground, is, demonstrated, by cogent adduced evidence, hence, by the tenant, vis-a-vis, it becoming ingrained with pervasive vice, of, malafides, hence, spurring from evidence personifying, vis-a-vis, the landlord, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, his instituting, the, rent petition, his leasing some portion, of, the apt building, to, the lessees or evidence surging forth, qua, for lack of funds, for the requisite purpose, becoming possessed, by, the landlord, (iii) yet his making mis-strivings, for proving, the, afore ground of eviction, of, the tenant, from, the demised premises. However, the, afore evidence, does not, exist on record, rather there exists firm evidence, making display, vis-a-vis, the landlord possessing sufficient financial resources, for, rebuilding, and, reconstructing the building, in part whereof, the, demised premises hence exist. 4. Even though, the authorities concerned, are, required to mete sanction, vis-a-vis, the building plans, submitted therebefore, hence, by the landlord, for thereafter, his ably commencing, the works of rebuilding, and, reconstructing, the, apposite building, (a) yet any lack of non meteing, of, sanction, vis-a-vis, the building plan, submitted by the landlord, to, the authorities concerned, (b) rather do not completely oust the landlord, from, seeking a verdict, of, eviction becoming pronounced against the tenant, (c) as, though only, upon the apposite sanction becoming meted, vis-a-vis, the building plans, by the authorities concerned, thereupon, the landlord would become fully empowered, to seek, coercive eviction, of, the tenant, from, the demised premises, yet, the ordering, of, eviction, of the tenant, from, the demised premises, can be made, rather dependent thereon . Moreover, since, the afore ground also vests an indefeasible rights, in, the tenant, to, upon, the apposite building becoming rebuilt, and, reconstructed, to hence seek, his re-induction therein, on fresh terms, and, conditions, (ii) thereupon, also the tenant/petitioner herein, cannot frustrate, the, lawful endeavour, of, the landlord, to, on the afore ground, hence, seek his eviction, from, the demised premises. Moreover, since, the afore ground also vests an indefeasible rights, in, the tenant, to, upon, the apposite building becoming rebuilt, and, reconstructed, to hence seek, his re-induction therein, on fresh terms, and, conditions, (ii) thereupon, also the tenant/petitioner herein, cannot frustrate, the, lawful endeavour, of, the landlord, to, on the afore ground, hence, seek his eviction, from, the demised premises. Consequently, the, findings concurrently returned by both the learned courts below, upon, the issue appertaining, to, the demised premises, being required hence by the landlord, for, reconstructing the same, for facilitating him to rear, hence, handsome profits therefrom rather after its reconstruction, and, which earlier thereto remained unreared therefrom, do not warrant, any interference being made by this Court. 5. Consequently, the, findings concurrently returned by both the learned courts below, upon, the issue appertaining, to, the demised premises, being required hence by the landlord, for, reconstructing the same, for facilitating him to rear, hence, handsome profits therefrom rather after its reconstruction, and, which earlier thereto remained unreared therefrom, do not warrant, any interference being made by this Court. 5. Be that as it may, as aforestated, though, the ground appertaining to the demised premises, becoming unsafe, and, unfit for human habitation, is, a statutory ground, of, eviction rather segregable, and, disjunct, from, the afore ground, also when hence, dehors, any evidence, for, hence sustaining the afore ground, remaining unadduced, yet would not constrain this Court, to scuttle, the, findings, recorded upon, the afore alluded statutory ground, (i) nonetheless, even evidence, has become adduced before the learned Rent Controller concerned, in satiation, vis-a-vis, the ingredients, appertaining to the latter ground, and, it does make valid pronouncement (s), qua, satiation therewith, becoming meted, inasmuch as, through, a, notice, embodied in Ex.P-14, becoming issued, under, Section 117, of, the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994, upon, the tenant (s), (ii) containing therein, a, declaration, hence, pronouncing, vis-a-vis, the, apposite building, becoming unfit, and, unsafe, for, human habitation, and, also with RW-1, in his cross-examination, acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the tenants other than the petitioner herein, rather vacating the premises, as, respectively leased to them, (iii) conspicuously after the portion (s), wherein, they held occupation becoming engulfed in the fire, (iv) and, concomitantly, thereupon, even if, assumingly, the demised premise (s) was not set ablaze, (v) and, assumingly, even if, it is safe, and, fit for human habitation, (vi) nonetheless, for ensuring that the segregable therefrom proven ground,a nd, appertaining to the demised premises, become, aptly pronounced, to, be vacated, for enabling the landlord to demolish, the, same along, with the other portions, of, the building, for, thereafter, the landlord reconstructing, and, rebuilding them, rather for his becoming empowered, to enhance, his, pecuniary gains therefrom, hence, is, yet got to be preserved, and, also is to be kept alive. In sequel whereto, even if no damages, are, encumbered, visa- vis, the demised premises, in, the fire which engulfed, the, other portion (s), of, the apposite building, and, also when hence, the demised premises, may be, safe for human habitation, yet, cannot overrun, the, further proven ground, of the landlord, requiring the vacant possession, of, the demised premises, for, his thereafter proceeding, to rebuild them, along with other portions, of, the building. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the extant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the concurrently recorded verdicts impugned before this Court are affirmed, and, maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.