IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.145 of 2007. Date of decision: 27.02.2008. Rashid & Another ….Petitioner Versus Geeta Ram ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the tenant’s revision against the concurrent findings of the two courts below directing the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises which are the subject of this eviction petition. The landlord instituted proceedings for eviction under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’), on the ground that the premises are bonafide required by the landlord for the purposes of building/re-construction by demolishing the existing 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 building which work cannot be carried out without the present structure including the tenanted premises being vacated by the tenant-respondent. This ground has been elaborated in para-18 of the petition as filed before the learned Rent Controller. The eviction was resisted by the petitioner- tenant on a number of grounds including estoppel, bar of maintainability under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was pleaded that the petition has been instituted with malafide design and intent. The learned Rent Controller, framed 6 issues. The first issue was as to whether the premises are required bonafide by the petitioner, the second and third issues related to the maintainability of the petition and estoppel respectively. After scrutiny of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Controller, held that on the grounds pleaded and the evidence on record, the respondent-landlord was entitled to an order of eviction in terms of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act. Issues of maintainability and estoppel were also held against the petitioner-tenant. The learned Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller after a detailed examination of the evidence and rival contention of the parties and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner- tenant. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant has raised a number of grounds and primarily urges that 3 the respondent-landlord is not entitled to eviction as he has not pleaded nor established the conditions for obtaining relief under Section 14(3)(a) & (c) of the Act which reads:- “14.Eviction of tenants.- 1 … … … … … … … … … … 2. … … … … … … … … … … 3. A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:- (a) In the case of a residential building, if- (i) He requires it for his own occupation: Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned: Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area; or (ii) … … … … … … … … (iii) … … … … … … … … (b) … … … … … … … … … (i) … … … … … … … … … (ii) … … … … … … … … … (iii) … … … … … … … … … 4 (c) In the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bonafide by him for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land is required bonafide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated.” Although this Court cannot re-appreciate the findings of fact arrived at by the learned two courts below except in the case of perversity or inconsistency of conclusions flowing from the facts, yet in order to satisfy its judicial conscience this Court had issued orders calling for the record of both the Courts below. I have been unable to persuade my 5 self to hold that the findings of both the courts below are perverse or of such a nature which are unsupported by the oral and documentary evidence on the record. They are also not of such a nature which would disentitle the respondent-landlord from invoking the aid of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act. The record does not remotely suggest that the petition has been instituted with malafide intention against the petitioner-tenant. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision instituted by the tenant which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. February 27, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.