CR No. 130/2009 06.01.2010 Present: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Punshi, Advocate with Mr. Y. P. Sood, Advocate, for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the following order is passed. On 7.1.2006, this Court allowed Civil Revision Petition No. 60 of 2006 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for framing additional issue with regard to the bonafide requirement of the petitioner herself. The question of her personal bonafide requirement as also the requirement of her son were to be decided by the Rent Controller. By deciding both the issues, in terms of order dated 18.9.2006, the Rent Controller allowed the petition filed by the landlady. However, in terms of the impugned order dated 31.7.2009, the lower Appellate Authority reversed the findings and the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the landlady’s petition filed under Sections 14(3)(a)(1) and 14(3)(b) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act. The lower Appellate Authority has not considered the question of landlady’s requirement for her own use and occupation as envisaged under Section 14(3)(a)(1) of the Act. As such, the impugned order dated 31.7.2009 is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the lower Appellate Authority. Appeal tiled as Jyoti Swaroop vs. Santosh Kumari is restored to its original position. The matter shall be heard by the District Judge himself who is the Appellate Authority. The parties agree to appear before the Court on 26.2.2010. The parties have been litigating since the year 1995. Therefore, it is expected of the Appellate Authority to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 30th June, 2010. Record be immediately sent back. The petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. January 06, 2010 (rana)