Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This is tenants revision against the order passed by Shri Janeshwar Goyal, Appellate Authority-1, Sirmour District at Nahan. By means of impugned judgment dated 2-7-1996 in Rent Appeal No. 13-N/14 of 1994, the appellate authority below has upheld the order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller II, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour in Rent Petition No. 3/2 of 1993 dated 27-10-1994.

2. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) had filed an ejectment petition under section 14 (3) (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the premises (shop) in question is in a very old condition/construction, roof whereof is not pukka one and it rests on the wooden rafters, the walls of the shop were also of ‘kachha nature and the floor of the shop is on higher level than the floor of the shops in the vicinity, as such the premises were bona fide required by her for reconstruction/construction which cannot be carried out without ejectment of the tenant. The respondent was stated to be in arrears of rent of the premises in question from the date of its purchase i. e. 24-12-1991 and rent at the rate of Rs. 200 p. m. total arrears amounting to Rs. 3,380 was claimed.

3. This petition was resisted and contested by the tenant who pleaded that the rent was initially Rs. 100 but was increased upto Rs. 190 and thus, it was pleaded that the rent is Rs. 190 and not as claimed by the Landlady in respect of the premises in question. Plea of the petitioner regarding the requirement of the premises for bona fide construction/reconstruction was also repudiated and it was further pleaded that since the premises are non-residential, as such the plea of bona fide requirement is not open to the Landlady under the Act It was further pleaded that the petition is mala fide and the construction/reconstruction can be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. Regarding rent, it was pleaded that the Landlady herself had refused to accept the rent, not only this, but she had also got the electricity supply disconnected to the premises in question with a view to pressurise the tenant to vacate the premises in question. Another ground pleaded was that the present petition is not maintainable, as the previous Landlady—Krishna had filed petition for ejectment which was dismissed on 30-12-1989 and thus, the petition is hit by the principles of res judicata in view of the bar of section 18 under the Act. In the rejoinder filed by the Landlady, the case set up by the tenant was controverted and the pleas raised in the ejectment petitioner were reiterated The premises in question are identified bearing shop No. 72 (1), situate in Ward No. 6 at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour.

4. In the aforesaid background, the parties went to trial on the following issues :—

1. Whether the premises in question is required for the bona fide requirement of reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the ejectment of the respondent ? OPP

2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged ? OPP

3. Whether the rent of the premises in question is Rs. 200 per month ? OPP

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the increase in rent as prayed for ? OPP

5. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR

6. Whether the petition is hit by principle of res judicata ? OPR

7. Relief. Issues No. 1, 2 and 4 were held in favour of the Landlady and issues No. 5 and 6 were held against respondent, under issue No. 39 it was held that the rate of rent of the premises is Rs. 190 and the respondent is in arrears of rent w. e. f. 1-1-1992 to September 1994 and it was further observed under this issue that w. e. f. January 1994 the rent was liable to be increased to Rs 209 p. m. While granting relief under issue No. 7, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered on the ground of reconstruction as well as on the ground of arrears of rent, and at the same time, it w