CR 205 of 2007. 23.6.2008 Present: Mr. Lalit Sehgal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Sood, counsel for the respondents. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority ordering the eviction of the tenant from the premises. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the matter, ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord. The second prayer made by the landlord that eviction was also required to be ordered on the ground of the tenant materially impairing the value and utility of the premises was declined. Two rent appeals were preferred, one by the tenant and the second by the landlord. The landlord of course had challenged that the learned Court below was incorrect in not considering his case for eviction of the tenant on the ground of material impairment of the demised premises. The tenant had challenged his eviction on the ground that the premises were not required for the purpose of bonafide residence of the landlord. The learned appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant holding that the findings of the learned Rent Controller -2- on the question of bonafide requirement were in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed. The tenant is now in appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted on a number of grounds that the premises are not required bonafide by the landlord, but it is mere whim and desire of the landlord to occupy the premises. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-landlord submits that the judgments of the two Courts below cannot be faulted with and the concurrent findings cannot be set aside merely at the asking of the tenant, more so when there is no perversity of findings arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority. I am not persuaded to take a different view on the question of bonafide requirement as pleaded by the landlord, nor do I find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence, that is to say that I cannot persuade myself to hold that either the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority have committed an error in appreciating the evidence in allowing the ejectment petition. This revision petition -3- is accordingly dismissed. However, at the request of the tenant, the execution of the eviction order is stayed till 31st December, 2010. The premises shall be vacated by the tenant on or before this date and vacant and peaceful possession handed over the respondent- landlords subject to tenant’s furnishing an undertaking by way of an affidavit to the following effect: (a) that he alone and his family members can occupy the demised premises; (b) that he personally or indirectly through his family members or any other person will not sublet, part with possession, alter the user of the premises or in any manner commit such acts either personally or through his family members or through any person whatsoever which will hinder the delivery of the possession of the premises; (c) that the premises will be kept in good repair and vacant and peaceful possession of the premises will be handed over to the respondent landlord on or before 31.12.2010 and in any event not later than 31.12.2010; (d) that petitioner will continue to pay the use and occupation charges as determined by the learned Courts below. For this purpose, the entire use and occupation charges may be paid on or before the date when vacant possession of the premises is handed over to the respondent-landlord or on -4- 10th of every month; (e) that in case of violation of any of the conditions undertaken by the tenant-petitioner, the eviction order shall become executable forthwith and in addition, the petitioner shall be liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, (f) that the petitioner tenant will not effect any other or further repairs, additions or alterations in the premises. There shall be no order as to costs. June 23, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.