JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against the respondent/tenant, seeking his eviction on the ground of carrying out reconstruction and rebuilding, which as per the petitioners could not be carried out unless the Demised Premises were vacated by the respondent.

2. The petition was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the grounds of maintainability as well as the issue that no document qua permission for reconstruction and rebuilding of the Demised Premises was placed on record by the landlords.

3. The Demised Premises comprises of two rooms, kitchen, common bath room and common toilet in second floor of Pursharthi Basti, Bazar Ward, Bara Shimla, H.P.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues::::

“1. Whether the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and is not fit for human habitation, as alleged? OPA.

2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent qua the demised premises, as alleged? OPA.

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR.

4. Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by way of their acts, deeds, omission, commission and acquiescence? OPR.

5. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR.

6. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR. 7. Relief. ”

5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were answered as under:“

Issue No.1 : Yes.

Issue No.2 : Yes.

Issue No.3 : No.

Issue No.4 : No.

Issue No.5 : No.

Issue No.6 : No.

RELIEF : The petition is allowed as per the operative portion of the order”.

6. The Rent Petition (i.e. Rent Petition No.1242 of 2014, titled as Sh. Rajeev Sood & another Versus Sh. Som Nath Chauchary) was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 31.10.2018 in the following terms:

“ 38. In view of my findings on the issues No.1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the petition succeeds and the same is as such allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to recover the amount to the tune of Rs.8,47, 963/as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2500/per month plus statutory interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2011 and the amended interest @ 12% per annum 2.3.f. 01.01.2012 till today i.e. 31.10.2018 and the respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid entire amount of the rent within the period of 30 days from today i.e. 31.10.2018, the date of passing of this order to the petitioners and failing which, the respondent shall beliable to be evicted from the demised premises. Further, it is held that the demised premises is bona-fidely required by the petitioners for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the demised premises being vacated by the respondent and the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the respondent is directed to hand over and deliver vacant possession of the demised premises i.e. two rooms, one kitchen and bath room common toilet in Second Floor at Purcharthi Basti, Bazar Ward, Bara Shimla, H.P. to the petitioners. However, respondent shall have the right of reentry in the reconstructed and rebuilt building to the extent of the area in his tenancy. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are left to bear their own respective costs. A memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The file after due completion be consigned to the record room.”

7. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate AuthorityII, Shimla, H.P., i.e. Rent Appeal No.32S/ 113(b) of 2018, titled as Som Nath Chaudhary Versus Sh. Rajeev Sood & another (decided on 16.08.2019), inter alia, on the ground that learned Rent Controller had failed to frame material issues arising out of the pleadings and nonframing of material issues had prejudiced the rights of the appellant. A