ORDER : Petitioners have approached this Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 24(5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (in short “the Act”), against order dated 24.10.2018 passed in Rent Appeal No. 1-D/XIV/2018 titled Moti Lal and others vs. Shankar Kumar by learned Appellate Authority-II, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby order dated 5.7.2018 passed in Rent Case No. 3 of 2007 titled Shankar Kumar vs. Moti Lal and others by the Rent Controller-cum-Civil Judge, Court No. II, Kangra, District Kangra evicting the petitioners has been affirmed. 2. Petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from demised premises for arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.7.1987 till passing of order as well as on the ground that demised premises are required by petitioners bonafide for the purpose of rebuilding the same, which cannot be carried out without eviction of petitioners therefrom, with further observations that if petitioners would pay the arrears of rent calculated in the order within a period of 30 days from passing of order, they shall not be liable to be evicted from demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that petitioners have deposited the arrears of rent, calculated by Rent Controller, within a period of 30 days as ordered by the Rent Controller and therefore, said ground for eviction does not survive. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that Rent Petition was not maintainable on the ground that respondent is not landlord as he is not owner of demised premises, and further that earlier also a Rent Petition titled as Mansha Devi etc. vs. Khindu Ram etc. bearing Rent Petition No. 9 of 1983 filed by predecessors-in-interest of respondent seeking eviction of predecessors-in-interest of petitioners on the same ground was dismissed and dismissal of the said Rent Petition was upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, successive petition, in view of Section 18 of the Act, on the same ground is not maintainable. It has been further contended on behalf of petitioners that shops, in reference, are in good condition and bonafide requirement for rebuilding and reconstruction has not been established on record and further that respondent, for not having permission for construction and approved sanctioned plan for re-construction and rebuilding, is not entitled to seek eviction of petitioners. 5. It has been further contended on behalf of petitioners that shops, in reference, are in good condition and bonafide requirement for rebuilding and reconstruction has not been established on record and further that respondent, for not having permission for construction and approved sanctioned plan for re-construction and rebuilding, is not entitled to seek eviction of petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that despite framing of issue with respect to previous litigation, the Courts below have not returned findings in that regard, whereas, respondent was not having any locus to maintain his eviction petition. Further that actual owner of premises in question is the Government and mutation attested in favour of respondent has been assailed by petitioners before the concerned Authority which is pending adjudication before the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra. 6. Learned counsel for respondent has controverted the submissions made on behalf of petitioners and has supported findings returned by the Courts below for the reasons assigned in impugned orders. In response to contentions that respondent is not landlord, he has also referred judgment dated 6.1.2011 passed in Civil Revision No. 149 of 2010, titled Moti Ram vs. Shankar Kumar, which was filed by petitioner Moti Lal against order dated 2.11.2010 passed by Rent Controller in Rent Petition, in reference, in present lis. Vide order dated 2.11.2010, the Rent Controller had dismissed the application filed by petitioners seeking amendment to the reply on the ground that State of H.P. was true owner of land and shops and mutation of proprietorship of shops in question had been wrongly attested in favour of respondent/predecessors-in-interest of respondent and further that no sanction had been accorded by State of HP for construction and reconstruction. The aforesaid Revision Petition No. 149 of 2010 preferred by petitioners was dismissed by this High Court. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to raise this issue again in present petition. 7. The aforesaid Revision Petition No. 149 of 2010 preferred by petitioners was dismissed by this High Court. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to raise this issue again in present petition. 7. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines landlord, which reads as under:- “(d) “landlord” means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorized, a specified landlord, and every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord;” 8. Definition of landlord in the Act clearly depicts that landlord need not be the owner of tenanted premises. In present case, in Rent Petition in Column No. 3(a), respondent has claimed that respondent Shankar Kumar is landlord. In reply, in response thereto, petitioners have stated that column No. 3(a) of petition is admitted to be correct. It is also an admitted fact of petitioners that they were paying rent to the respondent and they have also deposited the rent depicting the respondent as landlord. 9. Section 18 of Act reads as under:- “18. Decisions which have become final not to be reopened- The Controller shall summarily reject any application under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 14 which raises substantially issues as have been finally decided in a former proceeding under this Act.” 10. In case of Amarjeet Singh vs. Anju Rani reported in AIR 1997 Himachal Pradesh 64; 1997(1) Shim.L.C. 492 , it was held that where earlier petition was dismissed by Rent Controller observing that evidence led by landlord, regarding condition of premises, was of general nature without any expert substantiating the same and landlord had failed to prove resources and produce proper estimate, in the subsequent petition by landlord proving bonafide requirement as well as sanctioned plan and resources, tenant cannot improve his case on account of bar of Section 18 of the Act. 11. In present case, previous Rent Petition was filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondent in the year 1983, whereas, subsequent Rent Petition has been filed in the year 2007. 12. 11. In present case, previous Rent Petition was filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondent in the year 1983, whereas, subsequent Rent Petition has been filed in the year 2007. 12. In present petition, span of time between two petitions is considerably long and in previous Rent Petition, eviction was sought for arrears of rent since December 1973 till filing of petition, whereas in present petition, eviction has been sought for nonpayment of arrears of rent for period subsequent to the period involved in earlier petition and earlier petition was rejected on the ground that landlord had failed to explain the manner in which shops were to be put in use and business to be run in shops and there was no evidence on record to substantiate the claim of landlord regarding collection of building material and sanctioned plan from competent Authority, and also to disclose the intention to rebuild and reconstruct and capacity for doing so, and also to prove financial position of landlord showing the capability of reconstruction and rebuilding. Whereas, in present case, respondent has placed on record the plan sanctioned/approved by Executive Officer of Municipal Council as Ext.PW1/A and has also proved on record financial status of landlord/respondent by examining PW2 V.K. Sharma, Assistant Manager of UCO Bank and PW3 R.S. Chauhan, Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, who have produced Fixed Deposit receipts of respondent/landlord and his family and have also submitted that according to policy of Bank, respondent shall also be entitled for loan and in case filing of application, Bank shall provide loan to him. 13. In his own statement, respondent appearing as witness as PW4 has also proved on record the facts and circumstances which were not proved in previous Rent Petition. 14. In aforesaid circumstance, coupled with pronouncement of this High Court in Amarjeet Singh’s case, Section 18 of Act cannot apply to reject the claim of respondent. 13. In his own statement, respondent appearing as witness as PW4 has also proved on record the facts and circumstances which were not proved in previous Rent Petition. 14. In aforesaid circumstance, coupled with pronouncement of this High Court in Amarjeet Singh’s case, Section 18 of Act cannot apply to reject the claim of respondent. 15 Section 14(c) of Act provides as under:- “(c) in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bona fide by him for carrying out repairs which cannot be carded out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land is required bona-fide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated; 16. The aforesaid provision entitles the landlord to seek eviction if the rented building is required bonafide by landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations which cannot be carried out without building or rented land being vacated. 17. In present case, condition of rented premises is evident from photographs placed and proved on record as Ext.PW4/1 to Ext.PW4/14. 18. The Supreme Court in Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh (Dead) by LRs and others reported in (2003)1 SCC 191 has held that the fact that demolition and reconstruction would result into modernization, making additional space available and/or would augment the earning of landlord are relevant factors for determining the bonafides of requirement for demolition and reconstruction and bonafides of such requirements could not have been doubted solely on the ground that structure of building though old and outdated, had not gone so weak as was needed to be demolished immediately. 19. Though, in present case, respondent has proved on record the sanctioned and approved plan for reconstruction and rebuilding, however, it is also settled law that there is no statutory requirement to have sanctioned/approved plan to seek eviction on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction, as provided under the Act. 19. Though, in present case, respondent has proved on record the sanctioned and approved plan for reconstruction and rebuilding, however, it is also settled law that there is no statutory requirement to have sanctioned/approved plan to seek eviction on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction, as provided under the Act. 20 I have perused the impugned orders and have also gone through record. In the light of discussion herein-above and reasonings assigned for ejectment of petitioners, in the impugned orders, I find no irregularity, illegality, infirmity or perversity in impugned orders passed by Courts below. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.