JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant petition, stands, directed by the petitioner/tenant against the concurrent verdicts pronounced by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.6, Shimla, and, by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla, respectively, upon Rent Petition No. 47/2 of 2007, and, upon Civil Misc. Appeal No. 64-S/14 of 2009, whereunder, the eviction of the tenants, from the demised premises, was hence ordered. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are ,that the respondent herein/landlord, had claimed eviction of the petitioners/tenants from one big room, one small room, one glazed verandaha, Kitchen along with unauthorized construction in ground floor, Set No.2, Kethi, Chor View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6, on the grounds that the tenanted premises is bona fide required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding on old lines which cannot be done without its being vacated by the tenants, the building in question was constructed almost 100 years ago, and, it has no outlived its original span of life. The upper floor of the building is under the tenancy of Shayam Lal against whom the eviction application had already been filed. It is averred that the landlord intends to reconstruct and rebuild the entire building known as Chor View by puling down the existing old structure which is more than 100 years and is made of Dhajji and bricks walls, he has got the sufficient amounts to reconstruct the building and for such reconstruction, he is taking steps for approval of the plans on old lines and on the basis of said averments, the landlord has claimed eviction of the tenants. 3. The tenants/petitioners herein filed contested the petition by filing the reply, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability etc. On merits, the tenants refuted that the tenanted premises is used by the sub tenants and claimed that the tenanted premises were taken by one tenant Ranvir Malhotra along with sister Sarla, who has since expired and tenant Parmod Anand is widow of son of Smt. Sarla, who too has expired and that the tenanted premises are occupied by both the tenants in their capacity as tenants, and, none has left the same permanently. It was pleaded that the landlord has suppressed the fact that some of the portion of the building has been sold by him to the tenants, and, such tenants have become exclusive owners of their respective sets in question. It was pleaded that the landlord has suppressed the fact that some of the portion of the building has been sold by him to the tenants, and, such tenants have become exclusive owners of their respective sets in question. It has been pleaded that the entire structure of the building "Chor View" is interconnected and depending upon the side wall of other sets, the rebuilding of entire structure is not possible unless the owners of adjoining sets having exclusive rights of their own sets vacate the same. The flooring of the building is also of wooden with the wooden planks interlinking each other to provide stability to entire structure and any attempt to remove the same will result in collapse of entire structure including the portion owned by other owners. It has been pleaded that the application has been filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive to harass the tenants. 4. The landlord/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the tenants/petitioner 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 applicant is entitled for the eviction order on the ground that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required for the purpose of rebuilding 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 applicant has not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged?OPR. 5. Whether the applicant has suppressed the material facts, as alleged?OPR. 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller, hence, allowed the apt petition preferred therebefore by the landlord/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the tenant/petitioners herein, before, the learned Appellate Authority, the latter dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenants/petitioners herein, hence, affirmed the verdict, of, the learned Rent Controller concerned. 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. 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. During the pendency of the instant civil revision petition before this court, one of the copetitioners/tenants, one Ranvir Malhotra, expired on 30.12.2015, and, CMP No. 1246 of 2017, was preferred herebefore, wherethrough, relief(s) for the afore being ordered to be deleted, from, the array of the petitioners, and, for the extant civil revision petition being odered, to, be continued by petitioner No.2, was, espoused, (i) given the interest in the tenanted premises being sufficiently represented, by one of the co-petitioner/tenant, namely Smt. Pramoda Nand. Upon the afore CMP, an affirmative order was pronounced by this Court on 6.4.2017. However, a perusal of the order made on 6.4.2017, upon, the afore CMP, brings forth a trite factum (ii) qua despite an affirmative order, being pronounced by this Court, upon, the afore CMP, (iii) yet this Court granting liberty to the landlord, to contest, the entitlement, of, the surviving purported tenant, to, continue, with, the extant civil revision petition. Consequently, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondent herein, has, contended with much vigour before this Court (iv) that the afore liberty reserved, by this Court, by its making an order on 16.4.2017, upon, CMP No. 1246 of 2017, also entitles her to contest the entitlement, of, the surviving purported tenant(s), in, the demised premises, to yet, continue with the extant civil revision petition. The afore submission, vis-a-vis, the afore factum is rested, upon, the factum (v) that the afore Parmod Anand being, a, subtenant in the demised premises, (vi) and, hers being not inducted, as, a co-tenant in the relevant premises along with deceased tenant, one Ranvir Malhotra, (vii) and, with Ranvir Malhotra, expiring issueless, and, when the right to sue survives, only upon, the statutorily enumerated heirs, and, further when the afore heirs, are, wanting, (viii) thereupon, with the afore Pramod Anand, apparently, and, evidently being not the surviving heir of deceased original tenant, thereupon, the extant petition, on the demise of Ranvir Malhotra, hence abates. 9. 9. Though, the afore submission appears to be impressive, on is facade, (i) however, the afore submission, for the reasons assigned hereinafter, rather falters, (ii) given the contesting litigants contrarily pleading qua the afore Ranvir Malhotra being inducted, as, a tenant in the demised premises, importantly without the written consent of the landlord, and, qua both being inducted as co-tenants, in, the demised premises, by the landlord/respondent. Even through, the afore pleaded fact hence enjoined qua separate connected therewith issue, rather being formulated by the learned Rent Controller. However, a perusal of the issues, as stand ordered to be formulated, for adduction of evidence thereon, makes clear voicings, qua no issue appertaining to the original tenant, one Ranvir Malhotra inducting one Parmod Anand, as a sub tenant therein, and, importantly without the permission of the landlord rather standing framed. Even, when an appeal was carried by the tenants/petitioners herein, before, the learned Appellate Authority, against, the verdict of eviction pronounced, upon, the tenants, yet in the apposite grounds of appeal also the afore omission, remained unpleaded, for hence, thereupon, any valid onslaught being cast, upon, the verdict rendered by the learned Rent Controller, upon, the afore rent petition. The afore omission, causes, a, casualty to the landlord''s/respondent''s espousal, before this Court, that Pramod Anand, without the written consent, of the landlord, standing inducted, as, a sub tenant, by one Ranvir Malhotra. The further effect thereof , when construed, in conjunction, with the factum, that the, testification rendered by AW-4, a person appointed by the landlord, to collect, the, rent from the tenants, housed in the building concerned, not, unveiling qua his receiving rent qua the demised premises, only from Ranvir Malhotra, and, not from Pramod Anand, nor his testification making any voicings qua his issuing receipts qua attornment(s) of rent hence, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, only to afore one deceased Ranvir Malhotra. Consequently, wants of the afore open voicings, being testified by AW-4, rather bolsters an inference qua both Ranvir Malhotra, and, Pramod Anand, jointly tendering rent qua the demised premises to AW-4, (I) emphatically when the best evidence to erode the efficacy, of, eruption of the afore inference, was comprised, in adduction into evidence, of, the afore rent receipts, whereas, reiteratedly, omission(s) of adduction thereof into evidence, strengthens the afore inference. In nutshell, the afore argument addressed before this Curt by the counsel for the landlord, is, meritless, and, is rejected, in sequel, the co-petitioner No.2, is, entitled to prosecute the instant petition, dehors, the demise of co-petitioner No.1 Ranvir Malhotra. 10. Be that as it may, since the counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord, has, placed on record a copy of the judgment, rendered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, upon, Civil Revision No 83 of 2010, and, when, the counsels appearing for the contesting litigants, make a conjoint submission, that, the afore judgment, is, appertaining to the building, in part whereof, the, demised premises are located, (a) thereupon, when the ground of eviction, as, reared herein, is, anchored, upon the demised premises, enjoining eviction of the tenants housed therein, rather by hers/theirs, being ordered to be evicted therefrom, for, hence, facilitating reconstruction or rebuilding of the building, in part whereof the demised premises stand located, (i) and, when the afore ground reared herein, is, also reared in C.R. No.83 of 2010, (ii) thereupon, when civil revision petition No.83 of 2010, rather came to be allowed, and, the concurrent orders of eviction pronounced, upon, the tenant, in, the afore eviction petition, came to be set aside, hence, in consonance therewith, the instant civil revision petition is also allowed, and, the concurrent verdicts rendered by both the learned Courts below, hence, ordering, for, eviction of the tenant/petitioner, from, the demised premises, are, set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.