JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against the respondent/tenant, seeking his eviction on the ground of carrying out reconstruction and rebuilding, which as per the petitioners could not be carried out unless the Demised Premises were vacated by the respondent. 2. The petition was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the grounds of maintainability as well as the issue that no document qua permission for reconstruction and rebuilding of the Demised Premises was placed on record by the landlords. 3. The Demised Premises comprises of two rooms, kitchen, common bath room and common toilet in second floor of Pursharthi Basti, Bazar Ward, Bara Shimla, H.P. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:::: “1. Whether the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and is not fit for human habitation, as alleged? OPA. 2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent qua the demised premises, as alleged? OPA. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by way of their acts, deeds, omission, commission and acquiescence? OPR. 5. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR. 6. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR. 7. Relief. ” 5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were answered as under:“ Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : Yes. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Issue No.5 : No. Issue No.6 : No. RELIEF : The petition is allowed as per the operative portion of the order”. 6. The Rent Petition (i.e. Rent Petition No.1242 of 2014, titled as Sh. Rajeev Sood & another Versus Sh. Som Nath Chauchary) was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 31.10.2018 in the following terms: “ 38. 6. The Rent Petition (i.e. Rent Petition No.1242 of 2014, titled as Sh. Rajeev Sood & another Versus Sh. Som Nath Chauchary) was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 31.10.2018 in the following terms: “ 38. In view of my findings on the issues No.1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the petition succeeds and the same is as such allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to recover the amount to the tune of Rs.8,47, 963/as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2500/per month plus statutory interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2011 and the amended interest @ 12% per annum 2.3.f. 01.01.2012 till today i.e. 31.10.2018 and the respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid entire amount of the rent within the period of 30 days from today i.e. 31.10.2018, the date of passing of this order to the petitioners and failing which, the respondent shall beliable to be evicted from the demised premises. Further, it is held that the demised premises is bona-fidely required by the petitioners for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the demised premises being vacated by the respondent and the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the respondent is directed to hand over and deliver vacant possession of the demised premises i.e. two rooms, one kitchen and bath room common toilet in Second Floor at Purcharthi Basti, Bazar Ward, Bara Shimla, H.P. to the petitioners. However, respondent shall have the right of reentry in the reconstructed and rebuilt building to the extent of the area in his tenancy. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are left to bear their own respective costs. A memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The file after due completion be consigned to the record room.” 7. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate AuthorityII, Shimla, H.P., i.e. Rent Appeal No.32S/ 113(b) of 2018, titled as Som Nath Chaudhary Versus Sh. Rajeev Sood & another (decided on 16.08.2019), inter alia, on the ground that learned Rent Controller had failed to frame material issues arising out of the pleadings and nonframing of material issues had prejudiced the rights of the appellant. Rajeev Sood & another (decided on 16.08.2019), inter alia, on the ground that learned Rent Controller had failed to frame material issues arising out of the pleadings and nonframing of material issues had prejudiced the rights of the appellant. According to the appellant, there were no findings returned qua bonafide requirement of the premises for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction on account of nonframing of issues in this regard. As per the appellant, there was no intention of the landlords to rebuild the premises because no steps were taken by the landlords for sanction of the map from the competent authority. It was further the contention of the appellant that the learned Rent Controller had erred in returning the findings on the basis of inadmissible evidence. 8. This appeal has been allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 16.08.2019 in the following terms:“ 18. As a result of my findings on point no.1 above, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Rent Controller is setaside and the case is remanded back to the learned court below with the directions to frame proper issues on the ground of eviction taken by the petitioners and after giving opportunity of leading evidence by both the parties and after hearing the parties to decide it afresh. The record of court below be sent down forthwith along with an authenticated copy of this judgment. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned court on 17.09.2019. The file after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.” 9. Feeling aggrieved, the landlords have filed this Revision Petition. 10. As the respondent tenant did not appear before the Court despite service, he has been proceeded against ex parte. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 12. While setting aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, learned Appellate Court held that the learned Rent Controller erred in mixing two grounds, i.e. whether the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and whether it was bona-fidely required for rebuilding and reconstruction, which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. While setting aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, learned Appellate Court held that the learned Rent Controller erred in mixing two grounds, i.e. whether the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and whether it was bona-fidely required for rebuilding and reconstruction, which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. It held that the ingredients required to be proved to establish said two grounds were different and therefore, if issue framed was that the Demised Premises were not fit for human habitation then eviction could not have been ordered on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction. Learned Appellate Court held that neither proper issues were framed on these two counts because as per it, if eviction was ordered on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction then bonafide of the petitioners was also required to be proved for carrying out construction in the Demised Premises. On the basis of these findings the order passed by the learned Rent Controller has been set aside. 13. This Court is of the considered view that the reasoning which has been assigned by the learned Appellate Court while setting aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. A perusal of the record demonstrates that in the application filed under Section 14(2) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant, it was averred that the landlords were the owners of the Demised Premises which had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and required imminent rebuilding and reconstruction. It was specifically mentioned in the Rent Petition that the Demised Premises were required by the landlords bona-fidely for carrying out reconstruction and rebuilding work which could not be carried out unless the premises were vacated by the occupant of the tenanted premises in the building. 15. The case of the landlords thus was categorical that the Demised Premises were in a dilapidated condition and possession thereof was required by the landlords bona-fidely as reconstruction of the premises could not be carried out unless the same stood vacated by its occupant. 15. The case of the landlords thus was categorical that the Demised Premises were in a dilapidated condition and possession thereof was required by the landlords bona-fidely as reconstruction of the premises could not be carried out unless the same stood vacated by its occupant. It was in the backdrop of these pleadings as well as the case put forth by the landlords, which was in the knowledge of the tenant, that issue No.1 was framed to the effect as to whether the Demised Premises was in a dilapidated condition and not fit for human habitation. 16. Learned Appellate Court in fact has erred in not appreciating that the plea of the Demised Premised being unsafe for human habitation and thus were required for rebuilding and reconstruction bona-fidely were not distinct pleas which required different ingredients to prove them. The plea so taken by the landlords was inter dependent. Not only this, even the tenant had taken a specific defence that the Demised Premises did not require rebuilding and reconstruction nor was it bona-fidely required by the landlords for rebuilding and reconstruction. 17. The reasoning assigned in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as stand summed up in para32 onwards, demonstrates that learned Rent Controller has in detail gone into the issue as to whether the Demised Premises were in a dilapidated condition and whether they were bona-fidely required by the landlords for the purpose of reconstruction. 18. Even otherwise, it is settled law that non framing of issues is not fatal if the parties to the lis know the case of the respective sides. In this case, it was a specific plea taken in the Eviction Petition by the landlords that the Demised Premises were in a dilapidated condition and eviction of the tenant was bona-fidely required for the purpose of reconstruction of the same. The tenant refuted that the Demised Premises were in dilapidated condition and the same were therefore required bona-fidely by the landlords for the purpose of reconstruction. The tenant in fact led evidence to justify his stand. All these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned Appellate Court while setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 19. The tenant in fact led evidence to justify his stand. All these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned Appellate Court while setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 19. Therefore, in these circumstances, as this Court is convinced that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and reasoning assigned there while setting the order passed by the learned Rent Controller are not sustainable in the eyes of law, this petition is allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Appellate AuthorityII, Shimla, H.P., in i.e. Rent Appeal No.32S/ 113(b) of 2018, titled as Som Nath Chaudhary Versus Sh. Rajeev Sood & another, decided on 16.08.2019 and by upholding order 31.10.2018, passed by the learned Rent Controller, in Rent Petition No.1242 of 2014, titled as Sh. Rajeev Sood & another Versus Sh. Som Nath Chauchary. 20. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.