IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.169 of 2001. Date of decision:06.11.2008. Anand Sarup & Others …Petitioners Versus Smt.Meena Tawari & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been preferred by the landlord against the judgment of the learned appellate Authority affirming the judgment of the learned Rent Controller dismissing the petition for eviction filed by the landlord-petitioners against the respondents. The landlord petitioned the learned Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’), claiming eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement. The petition was allowed on account of non-payment of rent. On the other 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 issue, the learned Rent Controller holds that the petitioners had moved the Court on the allegations that petitioner No.1 is a retired government servant residing in Shimla; he is a patient of asthma and blood pressure and he intends to shift to Nahan to reside there permanently. Strangely enough, after having raised this plea no medical evidence is produced on behalf of the landlord to substantiate this plea of illness although petitioner No.1 states that he is suffering from asthma, low blood pressure and heart disease. His bald statement to this effect cannot be accepted. It is but natural that in this condition some treatment from a doctor was taken. The learned rent Controller also notices that a part of premises was sold to petitioner No.3 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by the petitioners. If the requirement of the landlord was bonafide, there is no explanation as to how and why these premises came to be sold. This clearly reflects that the need of the landlord is not bonafide but is a mere whim or desire which cannot be made as a ground for seeking eviction. On reappraisal of the evidence, the learned appellate Authority reaffirms all these findings. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that because of the old age of the landlord and his medical condition, the premises in question are required bonafide for their occupation as it is difficult for them to stay in 3 Shimla and Solan where they have their properties. He submits that low blood pressure and asthma are aggravated at Shimla during the Monsoon and Winter months and for this reason the petitioners want to shift to Nahan. This submission requires to be rejected outrightly. As I have held, in case the medical condition of the landlord was such which required his immediate moving away from Shimla there was no necessity to sell the premises to respondent No.3. Even if that conduct is condoned, there is no explanation as to why no evidence in the nature of medical treatment etc. has been produced. There is thus no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 6, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.