The judgment emphasizes the seriousness of false claims in litigation and the need to curb abuse of the judicial process, highlighting the importance of truth in litigation.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioner is the landlord whereas respondent is the tenant. The petitioner had earlier filed eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 (for short ''the Act'') seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises i.e. Shop No. 11/1 situated at Jagat Niwas, Sanjauli Bazaar, Shimla - 6. The eviction was sought mainly on the following grounds:-

2. Unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

3. Rebuilding and reconstruction.

2. The eviction petition was partly allowed on the ground that the petitioner bonafidely required the demised premises for its rebuilding and reconstruction and eviction on old lines and eviction on other grounds were declined.

3. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 10.11.2005 and even the revision petition preferred against the said order was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2010

4. The landlord thereafter filed an execution petition wherein the tenant took a plea that he has right of re-entry as per Section 14(3)(c) of the Act and vide order dated 10.06.2013, as per the statement of the parties, the right of re-entry was granted to the tenant and thereafter the keys of the demised premises were handed over to the landlord vide order dated 06.07.2013.

5. Admittedly, landlord did not carry out rebuilding / reconstruction work and only buttressed the building by carrying out plastering of the walls and flooring work. It is thereafter the tenant filed an application under Sections 14(5) and 14 (3) (c) of the Act for restoration of possession of the tenanted premises on the ground that the landlord has not put the premises for which the eviction was obtained by him and, therefore, the possession be restored to the tenant as per Section 14(5) of the Act. It was further contended that the tenant had right of re-entry vide order dated 10.06.2013, particularly, when the demised premises was lying closed for the last 1 years. In the alternate, the tenant prayed that he be inducted in the demised premises as per proviso to section 14(3)(c) of the Act.

6. Landlord contested the application by filing reply wherein he raised preliminary objections to the effect that the order of eviction had attained finality before the right to re-entry was incorporated by way of amendment in the Act. It was further contended that the Executing Court could not go beyond the decree and, therefore, the right of re-entry cannot be forced upon the landlord.

7. In addition thereto, the landlord also took preliminary objections that the right of re-entry can be effected only by mutual agreement of the parties and, therefore, in absence of any such mutual agreement, the landlord cannot be compelled to re-induct the tenant in the demised premises and further contended that the present application had been filed by the tenant to harass the landlord. On merits, the landlord took a defence that the rebuilding/reconstruction work had not yet been completed and rather had been stalled by the illegal, unlawful and unauthorized acts of the tenant who came to the spot on various occasions and threatened the landlord and his labourers with dire consequence and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the application.

8. The tenant filed the rejoinder reiterating the contents of the application and rebutted the averments as contained in the reply.

9. The application filed by the tenant came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller and the landlord was directed to restore possession of the demised premises to him within a period of 30 days. This order was assailed before the learned appellate authority, who vide order dated 09.04.2018, rejected the appeal and consequently the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed.

10. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Courts below, the landlord has filed the instant revision petition mainly on the ground that both the authorities below have fa