Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This revision petition under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 6-7-1993 passed by the Appellate Authority (District Judge), Shimla whereby the appeal of the respondent-landlady was accepted, the order dated 30-12-1988 of Rent Control (2), Shimla was set aside and eviction order was passed against the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the premises in her occupation are bona fide required by the respondent-landlady "in order to adjust the family of Kartar Singh" one or her sons.

2. This case has a chequered history. The premises in dispute are a residential set consisting of one room, one small room, one store, Kitchen and both room in building No 9, Lower Bazar, Shimla. The building was evacuee property and Shri Hans Raj Khanna, the father of petitioner-tenant, was inducted as a tenant in the premises in dispute by the authorities managing evacuee properties. Lateron the building was transferred to Shri Chattar Singh, the husband of the respondent-landlady, and Shri Hans Raj Khanna attorned him as his landlord. Shri Hans Raj Khanna was not heard since October, 1969 and on the expiry of seven years, he was presumed to be dead. In the meantime, Shri Chattar Singh died and the building in question was inherited by his widow Rupwanti, sons and daughters in equal shares. All the sons and daughters have transferred their share in favour of their mother, widow of Shri Chattar Singh, as such she became the sole owner and landlady of the building including the premises in dispute.

3. The respondent-landlay filed petition No. 18/2 of 1975 for eviction of Shri Hans Raj Khanna and obtained ex parte order on 30-11-1976. Oncoming to know of ex parte order of eviction, the petitioner-tenant claiming herself to be in occupation of the premises in dispute and entitled to inherit the tenancy rights of Shri Hans Raj Khanna being his unmarried daughter, filed civil suit No. 61/1 of 1977 for declaration that ex parte eviction order dated 30 11-1976 is a nullity and is not executable. The suit was contested by the respondent-landlady but ultimately it was decreed on 31-8-1979 by the Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla. Thereafter, again the petitioner-tenant was compelled to file civil suit No. 41/1 of 1981 against the respondent-landlady to restrain her from removing the floors and walls of the premises in dispute, and causing damage to it, which was decided by the Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla on 4-8-1981 on the statement made on behalf of respondent-landlady.

4. The eviction petition out of which the present revision petition arises, was filed by the respondent-landlady on 10-5-1984 on the following grounds as stated in para 18 (a) of the petition :— "18 (a) The grounds on which the eviction of the tenant is sought : (1) That the premises in question are bonafide required by the landlady for the use and occupation of the same by her married son Shri Kartar Singh, his wife and two children. Shri Kartar Singh is at present residing in a tenanted house in Sital Niwas, Sanjauli. (2) That the landlady/petitioner is occupying one set owned by her in the aforementioned building comprising three rooms where she resides alongwith two married sons, their wives and grand children alongwith one unmarried son. She has not vacated any building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of this petition in the Urban area of Shimla. (3) The eviction of tenant is sought on the ground on arrears of rent front." Further information supplied in para 19 is :— "The son of the petitioner/landlady, Kartar Singh is engaged and carries on business of Dhaba at Chhaila. His wife and child have to live independently at Shimla. As such, his wife and child need the help of immediate family members such as the present landlady and her sons who reside in Shimla. Moreover, the children of Kartar Singh are aged 5 years and 3 years goes to School since no proper