JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), against the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by learned Appellate Authority-III, Solan in Rent Appeal No. 23 ADJ-II/13 of 2014, whereby the order of eviction dated 08.07.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller,Kandaghat camp at Solan in Rent Petition No. RT No.8-S/2/07/04 has been affirmed. 2. Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as landlord) filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act against respondent No.2 and petitioner herein impleading them respondents No.1 and 2 respectively (hereinafter referred to as “tenants”) with a prayer to evict the tenants from the premises i.e. shop-cum-residence (shop in the ground floor and residence on the upper floor) in building No. 246/6, Ganj Bazar, Solan (hereinafter referred to as “the building”). 3. It was averred that the building had outlived its life and the landlord intended to reconstruct the same. The reconstruction of the building, as sought by the landlord, could not be undertaken without the building being vacated by the tenant. The landlord had submitted a plan for reconstruction to the Municipal Committee, Solan. He also provided the details of financial resources available with him, required for reconstruction. It was also submitted that the son of the landlord namely Ashish Garg, who was a mechanical engineer, to commence his own business in the building. 4. It was the case of the landlord that the upper floor of the building was in ruinous condition and was unfit for human habitation. As per him, no repairs were possible and reconstruction was required to be done from the foundation level. It was also submitted that the landlord or his son had no other building owned by them in the concerned Municipal area. Further, they have not vacated such building during the last 20 years or so. It was further alleged by the landlord that the tenant (Shri Pankaj Goyal) had shifted to Shimla and had handed over possession of the building to Shri Neeraj Goyal (respondent No.2 in original petition). On such premise subletting of premises was alleged. The user of the premises in the ground floor was alleged to have been changed from shop to godown without the consent and knowledge of the landlord. 5. The eviction petition was contested by the tenant. On such premise subletting of premises was alleged. The user of the premises in the ground floor was alleged to have been changed from shop to godown without the consent and knowledge of the landlord. 5. The eviction petition was contested by the tenant. The tenancy in the building was claimed to be in the name of M/s Goyal Brothers. Preliminary objections as to the non joinder and mis joinder of parties and estoppel etc., were raised. The tenant contended that the father of the landlord Shri Som Chand had entered into partnership business of running Flour Mill with the tenant Shri Pankaj Goyal on 12.07.1982. The said business failed and was wound up in the year 1983. Thereafter, late Shri Som Chand inducted M/s Goyal Brothers as tenant in the shop in August, 1983. Since then the business of M/s Goyal Brothers was being run in the building. The allegation that the tenant had converted the ground floor of the building into a single shop and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation were specifically denied. It was submitted that the building was in a quite good condition and was likely to exist for next 35 to 40 years. The alleged requirement of landlord to reconstruct the building as also to be used by his son was also denied. 6. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the premises in question were sublet to respondent Neeraj Goel by respondent Pankaj Goel without the consent of the petitioners/landlord, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the building in question has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and is required bonafide by petitioners for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without vacating the premises in question? OPP 3. Whether premises in question are bona-fide required for their own use and occupation by the petitioners? OPP 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 5. Whether petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 6. Whether petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR 7. Whether petition is bad for mis joinder of parties? OPR 8. Whether petitioners are estopped by their acts and conduct, to file the present petition? OPR 9. Relief. 7. All issues except issues No.2 and 3 were decided in negative. OPR 6. Whether petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR 7. Whether petition is bad for mis joinder of parties? OPR 8. Whether petitioners are estopped by their acts and conduct, to file the present petition? OPR 9. Relief. 7. All issues except issues No.2 and 3 were decided in negative. The learned Rent Controller held that the building had become unfit and unsafe and was bonafide required for reconstruction which could not be done without vacation of the premises. Further, it was held that the building was required by the landlord for use of his son who was a mechanical engineer. 8. The pleas raised by the landlord that there was creation of sub tenancy by Shri Pankaj Goyal (respondent No.1 in original petition) in favour of Shri Neeraj Goyal (respondent No.2 in original petition) and that there was change of user were rejected by the learned Rent Controller. 9. The landlord accepted the verdict. However, the tenant assailed the order passed by learned Rent Controller by filing an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the learned Appellate Authority. The appeal of the tenant came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority-III, Solan vide impugned judgment dated 30.09.2016. The findings and conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court were affirmed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 11. Both the Courts i.e. the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The landlord required the building for reconstruction, which could not be carried out without vacation of the building. The requirement of landlord in this behalf was adjudged to be bonafide as the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority were satisfied as to the existence of attending circumstances such as the real intent of the landlord, availability of funds etc. Both the learned Courts also held that the business of the son of the landlord was to be established in the building. 12. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act will neither sit as a Court of appeal nor will substitute its opinion unless the order assailed is found to be suffering from absolute illegality or perversity. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. 12. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act will neither sit as a Court of appeal nor will substitute its opinion unless the order assailed is found to be suffering from absolute illegality or perversity. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh , (2014) 9 SCC 78 the Constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 30. We have already noted in the earlier part of the judgment that although there is some difference in the language employed by the three Rent Control Acts un- der consideration which provide for revisional juris- diction but, in our view, the revisional power of the High Court under these Acts is substantially similar and broadly such power has the same scope save and except the power to invoke revisional jurisdiction suo motu unless so provided expressly. None of these statutes confer on revisional authority the power as wide as that of the appellate court or appellate au- thority despite such power being wider than that pro- vided in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision under consideration does not permit the High Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. Revision does not lie under these provisions to bring the orders of the trial court/Rent Controller and the appellate court/appel- late authority for rehearing of the issues raised in the original proceedings. XXX XXX XXX 43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reapprecia- tion of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examina- tion of the evidence by the High Court in revisional ju- risdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without con- sideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correc- tion because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its re- visional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propri- ety of any decision or order impugned before it as in- dicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regu- larity, correctness, legality or propriety of the im- pugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreci- ate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 13. Learned Senior Counsel representing the tenant has not been able to point out that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were either not based on the legal evidence or was based on the facts not proved on record in accordance with law. It also could not be shown on behalf of the tenant that the view taken by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority was so unreasonable that such view could not have been taken in any circumstance whatsoever. 14. Having gone through the record, I have found that the landlord besides examining himself had examined PW-2 as an expert, who had corroborated the stand of the landlord that the building required reconstruction which could not be carried without vacation of the premises. It had been opined that the structure has to be raised from foundation. The tenant has not produced any counter evidence to confront the expert opinion received by the landlord. 15. Noticeably, learned Rent Controller has found that the age of building was more than 60 years. It was the specific stand of the tenant in the reply filed before the learned Rent Controller that the building would stand for another 35-40 years. The reply was filed by the tenant in the year 2004. Almost 21 years have elapsed even thereafter. Noticeably, learned Rent Controller has found that the age of building was more than 60 years. It was the specific stand of the tenant in the reply filed before the learned Rent Controller that the building would stand for another 35-40 years. The reply was filed by the tenant in the year 2004. Almost 21 years have elapsed even thereafter. In case, the landlord intended to reconstruct an old structure which had outliving its life, his bonafides in doing so cannot be suspected. Another reason for holding so is that the landlord cannot be denied more beneficial use of his property. The requirement of landlord to establish his son in the building has also been upheld by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority. 16. In view of the above analysis, I find no material to take a view other than one taken by learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Their view is plausible and reasonable and is warranted by the evidence on record. 17. Lastly, the learned counsel for the tenant has contended that the amendment carried in the Act in the year 2012 will enure to the benefit of tenant and he is entitled for right of re-entry in the premises after reconstruction. The contention so raised needs to be rejected for reason that the amendment cannot be said to be retrospective. The cause of action pleaded in the case was of the year 2004 whereas the amendment came into operation on 16 th March, 2012. Similar view has been taken by a coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed in C.R. No. 69 of 2009, titled as Raj Singh vs. Ram Shakti (deceased) through LRs. along with connected matter, by holding as under:- “26) As regards the contention of the Counsel for the tenants that they are entitled to be re-inducted into the premises in view of the first proviso to Section 14(3)(c) of the Act is concerned, the said proviso, having been introduced by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act No.8 of 2012), it came into operation only from 16.03.2012. Since this provision introduces an amendment to the substantive law governing the rights of enants, it can only have prospective operation and cannot be made applicable to the instant case where eviction proceedings have started way-back in 2003. Since this provision introduces an amendment to the substantive law governing the rights of enants, it can only have prospective operation and cannot be made applicable to the instant case where eviction proceedings have started way-back in 2003. 27) Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Shri Jasvinder Singh & Another vs. Shri Kedar Nath, (2012) SCC Online HP 7470. 28) The decision in Chaman Lal Bali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another, AIR 2016 HP 168 cited by the counsel for the tenants, does not deal with this aspect at all, i.e. whether the amendment is prospective or retrospective. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable and the tenants cannot claim any right of re-entry on the basis of the said amendment.” 18. Further, it is not the case where the eviction has been ordered only on one ground of bonafide requirement of landlord to reconstruct the building. The eviction has also allowed on another ground i.e. the building is required by the landlord for bonafide requirement of his son. 19. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned judgments are affirmed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.