JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, who was the original tenant. The eviction petition in the case at hand was filed on two accounts:- a) The building in question having become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and; b) Building in required bona fidely by the landlord for the purpose of building or re- building and such re-building or re-building cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. 2. The Rent Controller after considering the pleadings and the evidence on record had allowed the eviction petition on the ground that the landlord bona fidely requires the premises for the purpose of building or re- building and that such building or re-building cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. Insofar as the ground of the building having become unsafe or unfit for human habitation is concerned, the eviction petition on the said account was negatived. The same was never assailed by the landlord/respondent. Hence, the said finding attained finality. 3. Against the aforesaid eviction order, an appeal was only preferred by the present original tenant. The appeal so filed was dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been filed. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that insofar as the ground for building or re-building is concerned, all that is stated in the petition is as follows:- “i. The petitioners require the premises for rebuilding/re-construction, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated.” 5. In the aforesaid backdrop learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that in terms of Section 14(3)(c), it is the requirement of law that when the premises in question are required for the purpose of building or rebuilding, then the landlord must specify bona fides in this respect and must categorically specify that the building or rebuilding cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. As per the learned Senior Counsel in the absence of bona fide not being shown, the petition deserves to be dismissed outright. As per the learned Senior Counsel in the absence of bona fide not being shown, the petition deserves to be dismissed outright. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the rejoinder filed by the landlord before the learned Rent Controller, as per the learned Senior Counsel herein again nothing has been stated qua the bona fide requirement of the land for seeking eviction of the petitioners on the ground of building or rebuilding. 6. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of landlord/respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the following specific portions of the eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller:- 18(2)………“The petitioners want to construct the building and want to put the same in more profitable use. (Technical report of the expert is enclosed herewith). 19(b) Any Other Information:- The petitioners have submitted the site plan to the municipal council, Theog for getting the plans approved for reconstruction. The relevant record of the same is enclosed herewith. The building is located in the heart of the town and main bazaar and can be put to more profitable use only when reconstructed. The petitioners have go sufficient means to reconstruct the building (location plan of the existing building is enclosed herewith).” 7. Other than the aforesaid, learned counsel for the landlord/respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the Technical Report (Ex.P2/A) submitted on behalf of the landlord by PW2 (Vivek Karol), wherein it has been categorically stated that the building sought to be rebuilt is a two storeyed Dhajji Walled Structure. Besides the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord/respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.A4 i.e. sanction letter issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Theog whereby on 17 th May, 2005, the landlord has been granted sanction to rebuild a three storeyed structure in place of the existing building. 8. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the record. 9. From a perusal of the rent petition along with the documents filed therewith, it is evident that the building in question is located in the heart of the town and is situated in main bazaar. From the technical report appended along with the eviction petition, it is evident that the building in question is a two storeyed Dhajji Walled Structure. The same is to be replaced by a RCC structure. From the technical report appended along with the eviction petition, it is evident that the building in question is a two storeyed Dhajji Walled Structure. The same is to be replaced by a RCC structure. The new structure to be raised is to be a three storeyed structure. It is the pleaded case of the landlord that the purpose for reconstructing the building is to put the same to a more profitable use. 10. Besides the aforesaid, from a perusal of the eviction petition, it is evident that qua raising of the proposed construction the landlord/respondent had prior to the filing of the eviction petition submitted a proposed site plan for approval before the concerned authority. Moreover, implicit/inherent in the plea of raising a RCC structure instead of the already existing Dhajji Walled structure is vacation of the premises before doing so. 11. In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the necessary requisite pleas qua bona fides required in the plea of building or rebuilding have not been raised in the eviction petition. 12. It is a settled position of law that while considering a petition on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding the condition of the building is immaterial. The sanction letter placed on record i.e. Exhibit A-4 dated 17.05.2005 categorically reflects that landlord has been allowed to build a three storeyed structure instead of two storeyed structure. The submission of a plan for rebuilding the demised premises to the concerned authority prior to filing of the petition and the sanction of the plan in favour of the landlord reflect the bona fides of the landlord. The tenant/petitioner while appearing as witness has admitted that the site of the premises is suitable for business as the same is situated in the middle of Shali Bazar. 13. The grant of an additional floor after sanction greatly enhances the economic/commercial value of the property in question, which admittedly is situated in the heart of the bazar. Replacement of the load bearing structure (Dhajji Walled Structure) by a RCC frame can only be done after the premises are completely vacated. 14. 13. The grant of an additional floor after sanction greatly enhances the economic/commercial value of the property in question, which admittedly is situated in the heart of the bazar. Replacement of the load bearing structure (Dhajji Walled Structure) by a RCC frame can only be done after the premises are completely vacated. 14. So far as the right of re-induction or re-entry is concerned that shall be subject to all provisions of law applicable at the relevant point of time for such re-entry including determination of fair rent or rent mutually agreed between the parties as well as proposed user of the property by the landlord. 15. In view of the aforesaid, petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.