JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 17.01.2006, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 47-S/14 of 2003. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that R.S. Puran Mall Trust, Shimla filed a petition through its Secretary against the respondent-tenant on the following grounds, as stated in paragraph No. 18 of the petition which reads as under:

(i) The building in question, bearing Municipal No. 91, Lower Bazar, Shimla is a very old construction which have out lived its life span. It is in a very dilapidated condition. It was constructed more than 100 years back. It stood constructed in mud mortar and is Dhazi construction from foundations. The entire premises in occupation of the respondent in ground floor are also in a very dilapidated condition and may give way at any time. The entire woodwork of the said tenanted premises has rotten and building is out of plumb. The building and tenanted premises are unsafe and unfit for human habitation and requires to be reconstructed from foundations on old lines as permissible under law. Therefore, the premises in occupation of respondent are bonafide required by the petitioner trust for reconstruction on old lines from foundations.

(ii) The petitioner Trust wants to reconstruct the entire said building alongwith the premises in occupation of the respondent on old lines, which reconstruction work cannot be carried out unless the premises are vacated by the respondent. Therefore, the premises in occupation of the respondent are bonafide required by the petitioner for reconstruction on old lines. The building have out lived its economic life, therefore, the same is to be reconstructed with in R.C.C. frame work. The petitioner Trust is a charitable trust. The income from the building in question is spent and used in various welfare causes of the society. The petitioner Trust is also initiating eviction proceeding against the other tenants in the said building on the same ground. The petitioner trust have consulted an expert engineer in this behalf who is entrusted with work of seeking sanction from M.C. Shimla for reconstruction of the building on old lines. Necessary plan is being got sanctioned for the said reconstruction work. The petitioner Trust has sufficient funds for carrying out the proposed reconstruction work of the said building. The building in question have been found to unsafe and unfit for human habitation by the Expert Engineer who will submit his report after he is allowed to inspect the building and premises from inside by the respondent and tenants with permission of this Court. Thus, the premises are bonafide required by the petitioner for reconstruction on old lines.

(iii) The respondent has failed to pay the arrears of rent of the said premises despite requests made by the petitioner. The respondent is also liable to pay the statutory increase in the rent which is permissible under the provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act from the date of tenancy 10% increase is payable after every five years from the date of tenancy as per details given below:-

2. The petition was resisted by the tenant. According to the tenant, all the trustees have not signed the petition and the President and the Secretary of the trust could not become the landlord of the premises. It is also submitted that the condition of the building was good and it did not require any re-construction and rebuilding. It was denied that the building was 100 years old. The building was neither unsafe not unfit. It was denied that the reconstruction could not be carried out till the premises were vacated by the tenant. It was denied that the building has outlived its economic life. According to the tenant, the landlords have no sufficient funds for carrying out the repairs. It was denied that the tenant was liable to pay increased rent of 10% from the year 1972.

3. Rejoinder was filed. The learned Rent Controller