SURINDER SARUP, J.-This revision petition has been filed under Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent orders of the learned Rent Controller (1), Shimla dated 30.9.1994 and the Appellate Authority, Shimla, dated 15.9.1997 whereby eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute has been ordered on the ground of bona fide personal necessity.

2. The premises in dispute is known as Fontaine Bleu Villa, situated in Shimla. Out of this building, the respondent-landlady applied for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a portion consisting of two rooms, kitchen, store, W.C., bath and glazed Varandah. The eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the entire building, referred to above, for her own use and occupation as also for her family consisting of herself, her husband, three children i.e. one son and two daughters and aged father-in-law. Besides her family members, she had also employed two servants who were residing with her. Her husband was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mandi at the relevant time, while the children were studying in schools at Shimla. Since the job of her husband was transferable, therefore, she intended to settle her family permanently in Shimla. With that object in view, she purchased the building for the purpose of residence. She had been delivered possession of the building which was in occupation of the tenants Le. Miss E. Masih and K.B. Vaidya. Another tenant was Krishan Chand Sharma who was also residing in the said building. She had separately filed an eviction petition against Krishan Chand Sharma. At the time of filing of the eviction petition in the present proceedings, the respondent-landlady with her family was residing in the Government accommodation allotted to her husband. However, on his transfer outside Shimla, the Collector (Estate Officer) had passed the eviction order against him from the said Government accommodation. An appeal had also been filed by her husband against that eviction order. On this plea, the respondent-landlady applied for eviction of the present petitioner-tenant from the said portion of the premises in dispute. She also took the ground of non-payment of rent on the plea, that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.5.1981 to 31.8.1988 at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month alongwith interest thereon, total amounting to Rs. 12,910.70. Hence, the eviction petition.

3. In his written statement, the present petitioner i.e. tenant took as many as 16 preliminary objections which are not necessary to be reproduced here as they form part of the record. On merits, it was pleaded by him that the premises in dispute, more particularly, the portion thereof against which eviction was sought, were not bona fide required by the respondent-landlady for her own use and occupation as also for her family. According to the written statement, her husband is posted at Shimla. It was denied that the father-in-law of the respondent-landlady was residing with her there. It was further pleaded that other accommodation in the building in question which has fallen vacant, is more than sufficient for her personal requirement. It was further alleged that the respondent-landlady was residing comfortably in the accommodation allotted to her husband in Shimla. As regards the arrears of rent, the plea of the petitioner was that he has paid the entire rent upto-date as he has already deposited the same in the Court of Rent Controller (3), Shimla.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :— (1) Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioner bona fide for personal use and occupation, as alleged? OPP. (2) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, as alleged? OPP. (3) Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the petition, as alleged? OPR. (4) Whether the petition has been filed with mala fide, as