JUDGMENT

VENKATACHALLA, J. :- The question that needs our consideration and decision in this appeal by special leave is can a tenant of a residential building who is allotted a residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements and becomes liable for eviction from that residential building on an application made by his landlord under Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - the 1987 Act, resist grant of such application on the ground of having lost the allotted residence by surrender.

2. Antecedent facts are briefly these :

The appellant was a tenant of a residential building, Shop No.6, Second Floor, Chhota Shimla Bazar, Shimla under its owners. When that residential building was sold by its owners to the respondent, under a registered sale deed dated 23-9-1982, the appellant became the tenant of the respondent in respect of it. By accepting him as his landlord. However, by then, the appellant was in possession of a residence allotted to him as a Government servant of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Since the provision in S.14(3)(a)(f) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 - the 1971 Act entitled a landlord to get possession of a residential building from his tenant when such tenant was allotted a residence which was reasonably sufficient for his requirements, the respondent (landlord) issued a notice dated 20-10-1982 to the appellant (tenant) calling upon him to give possession of the residential building according to the said provision. But, the appellant did not give possession of the residential building to the respondent as required by the said notice. Instead, the appellant chose to lose possession of the allotted residence by surrendering it to the Government. The respondent who did not get possession of the residential building from the appellant despite notice issued in that regard, made an application under S. 14(3)(a)(f) of the 1971 Act before the Controller seeking eviction of the tenant from the residential building. However, the appellant resisted grant of that application on two grounds: (i) that the residence being not reasonably sufficient for his requirements he could not be evicted from the residential building under S. 14(3)(a)(f) of the 1971 Act, and (ii) that the residence allotted to him, when had been lost by surrender, he could not be evicted from the residential building under S. 14(3)(a)(f) of the 1971 Act. The grounds on which the application of respondent was resisted did not find favour with the Controller and were rejected by him as unmerited and untenable by his order dated 10-4-1985 with a direction given thereunder to the appellant to out(sic) the respondent in possession of the residential building. That order of the Controller though impugned by the appellant in an appeal filed before the appellate authority under the 1971 Act that appeal was dismissed resulting in affirmation of the order of the Controller. Thereafter, on 6-5-1986 the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was the Revision Authority under the 1971 Act impugning the order of the Controller, as well as, the Appellate Authority.

3. When the said revision petition filed under the 1971 Act was pending disposal by the Revision Authority - the High Court, the 1987 Act was brought into force with effect from 17-11-1971, the date on which the 1971 Act had come into force. The 1987 Act which repealed the 1971 Act, as well, required disposal of every application, appeal, or revision petition, pending decision under any provision of the 1971 Act before the Controller, Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority, in accordance with the corresponding provision of the 1987 Act as if the corresponding provision contained in the latter Act was, at the relevant time, in force. Therefore, the High Court, before which the revision petition of the appellant was pending disposal as a Revisional Authority under the 1971 Act had to decide that revisi