The landlord's requirement for the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction is independent of the condition of the building and the landlord need not prove that repairs cannot be carried out without evicting the tenant.

M. Srinivasan, C.J.

1. Though the Petitioner has failed in both the Courts, I am of the opinion that he has to succeed in this revision petition on one of the grounds for eviction pleaded by him, namely, the premises are bona fide required by the Petitioner for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction after demolition of the present structure. The Petitioner had also pleaded that the building had become very old and unsafe and unfit for human habitation The other two grounds raised by him were that without consent of the Petitioner, the tenant had carried out certain alterations to the building, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the same and that the tenant was using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was let out.

2. Both the Courts have held against him on all the grounds and I do not find any merit in the revision petition with regard to three grounds, namely, the building being unfit for human habitation, the building having been materially altered so as to impair its value and that the building- being used by the tenant for a different purpose.

3. However, both the Courts have mis directed themselves while considering the case of the Petitioner that he requires the building bona fide for the purpose of demolishing the same and reconstructing it. While dealing with this ground, the Courts below have chosen to take into consideration the case of the landlord that it was unfair for human habitation and having rejected that case earlier proceeded to hold that this ground is also not available to the landlord. That is the basic mistake committed by both the Courts,

4. The Rent Controller has stated in his order that the landlord had got the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation Shimla for reconstruction and also brought evidence on record to prove that he has sufficient funds to carry out the proposed re-construction. But the Rent Controller has not given any weight to the same for the reason that the building was in a condition fit for habitation According to the Rent Controller, that negatives the bona fides of the claim of the landlord I am unable to appreciate as to how the fitness of the building for human habitation could be taken as a factor negativing the bona fide of the claim of the landlord for the purpose of demolishing the building and re constructing the same No doubt, it may be a piece of evidence if the building is in such a condition that it requires demolition, but the statutory provision in Section 14(3)(c) does not make it a condition precedent There are two independent grounds in the said section. One ground is that the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and Anr. ground is that it is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of demolition and re-building If one of the grounds is not proved, it does not mean that Anr. ground cannot be accepted The two grounds cm be proved independently and at the same time the two grounds can be proved jointly also for the purpose of proving that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction bona fide It is possible for the landlord to show that it has become unfit for human habitation and that is why it is required for demolition, but that does not preclude the landlord from proving independently of the condition of the building that he requires bona fide the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.

5. In this case I have referred to the way in which the Rent Controller has appreciated the matter The Appellate Authority has gone one step further. While referring to the evidence regarding the funds possessed by the landlord to show that he has got (sic) means to demolish the building and reconstruct a new one, the Appellate Authority has also found that the documents produced by him, namely, Indira Vikas patras have come in existence only after the filing of the petition and they could not be taken as acceptable evidence The Appellate Authority has ch