The court clarified the maintainability of eviction petitions, the rights of co-owners to file suits for eviction, and the definition of 'perverse' findings. It also emphasized the correct application of provisions of law to the given facts and circumstances of the case.

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The petitioners are the tenants, who after having an order of eviction at the hands of the learned Rent Controller as affirmed by learned Appellate Authority, have filed the instant revision petition.

The parties shall be referred to as the ‘Landlords’ and the ‘Tenants’.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landlords filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, (for short ‘Act’), seeking eviction of the tenants from the tenanted premises comprising a shop No.61, measuring 9.60 x 4.20 meters, constructed on khasra No. 125 and 126 at Up-mohal Sanjauli Bazar. It was averred by the landlords that their predecessor-in-interest had rented out the shop in the year 1945 and the premises in occupation of the tenants are bonafidely required by the landlords for setting up of office-cum-business premises of respondent No.1 and his daughter Mrs. Itee. It was averred that respondent No.1 is 65 years of age and is graduate in Engineering and he retired as Chief Engineer from H.P. State Electricity Board and has got experience of 35 years in the field of Engineering and he wants to augment his income by utilizing his experience which he gained in service with Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. It was further averred that there is no suitable accommodation for running proposed professional work except the premises occupied by the tenants. It was averred that he was already doing consultancy but no suitable accommodation is available with him in the market for this purpose. It was averred that he has no son to look after him and his wife who is an old aged lady, and therefore, he has decided to shift his daughter to Shimla so that she can reside at Shimla with him and take care of him and his wife in their old age. It was averred that his daughter is doing private job and her husband is also doing private work and they have experience in Information Technology and advertising and for that purpose also they require suitable accommodation for settling at Shimla and they have proposed to start internet cafe in a place where customers are offered with high speed internet access of national and international level along with other computer services and variety of PC games and other allied computer services. It was further averred that the demised premises is bonafidely required by respondent No.1 and he does not have any vacant shop/commercial premises in the main market in Urban area of Shimla for carrying work and also for establishing his daughter and son in law.

3. The said petition was contested and resisted by the tenants on various grounds inter alia maintainability and the landlords are estopped from filing and maintaining the present eviction petition and the same is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further averred that the present petition is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and this ground of eviction is not available under the Act and the petition has been filed with malafide intention and with a view to get the rent increased. It was also averred that the landlords have failed to plead and prove the necessary ingredients which are essential to evict the tenants from the premises. It was further averred that the premises in question is non- residential and the ground of bonafide requirement for eviction is not available for such premises. The petition was sought to be dismissed being barred under the principle of res judicata. Similarly, it was averred that neither the premises are required by the landlords nor for his daughter who is settled at Panchkula. It was averred that another petition filed by the landlords seeking eviction of the present petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement by pleading that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and use which is still pending in the court of leaned Rent Controller, Court No.6, Shimla. It was fur