ORDER : Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “tenant”) has approached this Court by way of this Revision Petition, assailing judgment dated 20.4.2021, passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla exercising powers of Appellate Authority (IV) under Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987) in Rent Appeal No. 2-S/14 of 2020, titled as Harsh Mehta vs. Baldeep Singh, whereby, dismissing the appeal under Section 24 of the H.P Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for Short “the Act”), Appellate Authority has confirmed eviction order dated 12.12.2019, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. (II), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Rent Petition No. 106/2 of 2016 titled as Baldeep Singh versus Harsh Mehta. 2. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “landlord”) approached the Rent Controller, Shimla for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement, claiming that accommodation occupied/available with the landlord was not sufficient to accommodate his daughter, studying in University of London intending to settle in Shimla to look after her aged parents i.e landlord and his wife. 3. Eviction Petition was opposed by the tenant on the ground that one set vacated by one Mrs. Judith Kroll, comprising of two big rooms, lobby and bath-cum-toilet, was available with landlord after eviction of tenant 2-3 years prior to filing of eviction petition and further that eviction petition has been filed by the landlord in order to harass the tenant and compelling her to enhance the rent exorbitantly. 4. Landlord, to substantiate his plea, has appeared in witness box as PW-1 and has examined PW-2 Bal Krishan whereas tenant did not appear in Court nor led any other evidence to substantiate her claim. 5. After taking into consideration the material on record, Rent Controller passed eviction order against the tenant and the appeal preferred by the tenant has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 6. Main ground to assail the impugned judgment and order, propounded on behalf of tenant is that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and ratio of law that the landlord is best person to assess his requirement of accommodation, has been wrongly applied in present case as in this case, landlord has acquired premises in the ground floor 2-3 years prior to filing of eviction petition. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the tenant that the landlord has suppressed the material facts and has not come to Court with clean hands by claiming that there is no other accommodation to settle his daughter, despite having sufficient accommodation in the ground floor adjacent to the premises occupied by the tenant and also that for availability of four rooms in first floor in his accommodation, claim of the landlord was falsified but the Courts below have passed eviction order which is perverse for evidence on record. 7. It is submitted on behalf of tenant that despite having more than sufficient accommodation, the landlord has failed to explain for what purpose entire building is required by him as the daughter of landlord can be accommodated in the accommodation already available with the landlord. It has been argued that though in his cross-examination landlord has tried to justify his requirement by giving details of the rooms alongwith purpose for which they are required but for want of claim in the petition, such evidence is not admissible. 8. Learned counsel for landlord has submitted that landlord has not suppressed any material facts and has stated all facts in truthful manner as existing at the time of filing the petition as in para 18(a) it has been specifically mentioned that in recent past, from the date of filing of petition, landlord got vacant possession of two rooms set which is adjacent to set of tenant through Court from tenant Mrs. Judith Karoll on the ground of non-payment of rent and ceased to occupy. 9. It has further been contended on behalf of land lord that in paragraph 18(a), the landlord has also disclosed details of entire accommodation available with him in ground floor as well as in first floor with further details that which room was being used and shall be used for what purpose. 10. It is pointed out on behalf of landlord that not only in petition but also in deposition of landlord, as a witness, as PW-1, the landlord has disclosed complete facts with respect to accommodation available with him and his requirement and has also placed on record map Ex. PW-1/A depicting the status of accommodation available with him and also the premises/set occupied by the tenant. 11. PW-1/A depicting the status of accommodation available with him and also the premises/set occupied by the tenant. 11. Learned counsel for landlord has submitted that the evidence led by landlord remains un-rebutted as neither tenant nor any witness has been examined to substantiate claim of the tenant and the pleadings without evidence are of no help to the tenant. 12. Lastly it has been submitted that tenant is not residing in the rented accommodation for throughout the year but only for 6-7 months and, therefore, it is not the only accommodation with the tenant to live but her son and daughter in law are also residing in Shimla. 13. Learned counsel for landlord has submitted that scope of interference by the High Court with the concurrent findings of the Courts below is very narrow and to substantiate his plea he has referred to a case reported in (2008) 7 SCC 293, titled Yunus Ali (dead) through his LRs. Versus Khursheed Akram. 14. It is well settled position in law that revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to set aside the concurrent findings of Courts below by taking a different view of evidence especially when view taken by Courts below is a possible and plausible view. It is no ground to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below by exercise of the revisional jurisdiction that another view on face of evidence could have also been taken. Undoubtedly, revisional Court is empowered to interfere with the findings of Court in revisional jurisdiction when findings are perverse or there has been non-appreciation or non-consideration of material evidence and pleadings on record by the Courts below. 15. In the present case, though the eviction petition has been opposed and averments made in the petition have been denied by filing reply, but fact remains that to rebut the evidence led by the landlord, tenant has not led any evidence and the evidence led by the landlord remained un-rebutted. 16. Undoubtedly landlord’s case for insufficient or inadequate evidence and/or for lacking necessary material on record in his pleadings as well as evidence, shall result into dismissal of the claim of the landlord even in absence of evidence on the part of tenant. 16. Undoubtedly landlord’s case for insufficient or inadequate evidence and/or for lacking necessary material on record in his pleadings as well as evidence, shall result into dismissal of the claim of the landlord even in absence of evidence on the part of tenant. However it is not so in present case as in present case landlord has disclosed all material facts honestly in his eviction petition and that claim has been substantiated by evidence led by the landlord with clear depiction of accommodation available with him in map Ex. PW-1/A. Ongoing through the entire record, I find that plea raised by tenant in present petition is factually not correct and thus not tenable. 17. Conclusion arrived at by the Courts below, including observations that landlord is the best person to determine his requirement to settle himself and his family members, is possible and plausible view based on material on record of present case based on proper appreciation of evidence. I find no infirmity, illegality or perversity, warranting interference by the Court in concurrent findings of the Courts below. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.