JUDGMENT :

Instant Revision Petition, under Section 24(5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (herein after referred to the “Act”) has been preferred against the order dated 24.12.2019, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Act (herein after referred to be the “Appellate Authority”) in Rent Appeal No. 6-RA/14 of 2019, titled as Jai Dev Singh Vs. Tahir Khan, whereby order of eviction dated 25.6.2019 passed in Rent Petition No. 08/2 of 2013, titled as Tahir Khan Vs. Jai Dev Singh passed by Rent Contrller-2, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., has been upheld.

2. Petitioner herein is tenant and respondent is landlord and hereinafter they have been referred as tenant and landlord respectively.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.

4. It is admitted fact that Mohd. Khan, father of Tahir Khan (landlord) had rented out two shops to tenant. Mohd. Khan was having six children, i.e. two sons and four daughters. After death of Mohd. Khan interest in the property devolved upon his six children. Landlrod herein is one of them. It is also admitted fact that not only landlord Tahir Khan, but his brother Mehtab Khan also filed Rent Petition under Section 14 of the Act for eviction of tenant Jai Dev Singh from the shops, under reference.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant has contended that there are six co-owners in the property having right over the shops and, therefore, petition filed by landlord is not maintainable, particularly when another landlord Mehtab Khan has also preferred rent petition for eviction of tenant from the same shops. Further that despite the fact that landlord had filed Rent Petition for eviction of tenant from two shops, the Rent Controller has splitted the tenancy by passing eviction order from one shop in favour of landlord in present petition.

6. It has been argued on behalf of tenant that there is no bonafide requirement of landlord as landlord has also failed to place on record sufficient material to substantiate his claim of bonafide requirement of the shops and further that he is not the landlord and, therefore, he is not entitled for maintaining the Rent Petition and there is dispute inter se children of original landlord and for that reason, tenant is depositing rent in the Court. It has been further contended that, as claimed by landlord, a partition decree has been passed amongst the children of Mohd. Khan, whereby equal share in the property has been given to Tahir Khan and Mehtab Khan, whereas four sisters have been held entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each and, therefore, Mehtab Khan is also having equal right alongwith Tahir Khan, whereas Rent Controller has passed eviction order of bigger shop in favour of Tahir Khan landlord, which is not in consonance with the claim put forth by the landlord with respect to his share in the property. It has been contented that landlord did not approach the Court with clean hands by claiming him to be absolute owner of two shops, whereas neither it was nor it is so and further that the property in reference has been divided during pendency of the petition, but at the time of filing petition, property was joint.

7. It has been also argued on behalf of tenant that Mehtab Khan had also filed eviction petition to evict the tenant from two shops, however, eviction order from one shop has been passed in his favour and against the tenant. According to learned counsel for the tenant, this course was not available with the Rent controller, rather both petitions should have been dismissed for having filed two petitions seeking identical relief i.e. eviction of tenant from two shops. Learned counsel for the tenant has contended that without giving any finding with respect to bonafide requirement, passing of eviction order against the tenant, on the said ground is perverse for being not substantiated by any material on record.

8. Learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that landlord, afte