JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Present Revision Petition, invoking provisions of Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rent Act’), has been preferred against judgment dated 29.7.2022 passed by Appellate Authority, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 2-S/13B of 2022, titled as Sunil Thakur vs. Brij Mohan Sharma, whereby order dated 7.1.2022, passed by Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Case No. 9/2 of 2019, titled as Brij Mohan Sharma vs. Sunil Thakur, ordering eviction of tenant from the demised preemies, has been affirmed.

2. For convenience, parties hereinafter shall be referred according to their status before the Rent Controller, i.e. respondent herein as landlord and petitioner herein as tenant.

3. Landlord preferred a Rent Petition seeking eviction of tenant from non-residential premises, on the ground of bona-fide requirement for the purpose of establishing office to practice as an Advocate and also for his daughter, who was likely to complete her degree in Bachelor of Laws in the year 2019, to establish her as an Advocate. It was declared by landlord that he had not acquired any such suitable accommodation within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Shimla within five years of filing of Rent Petition nor he had rented out any such accommodation.

4. Tenant had denied the fact that petitioner or his daughter were Advocates, rather it has been claimed that they were doing their jobs outside Shimla and further that within five years from filing of petition a similar shop was vacated by other tenant of landlord which has been rented out to Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank after March, 2016 for installation of ATM Machine, and further that first floor of the premises, consisting of 4-5 rooms, was in occupation of landlord and it was vacant, but it was rented out by the landlord to BJP IT Cell in the month of August-September, 2018 and further that, thereafter the same has been rented out for residential purpose to a family.

5. Landlord was employee of Ambuja Cement Limited, Darlaghat w.e.f. 27.8.2008 to 10.12.2018 and his daughter has completed her BALLB in the year 2019 and she has been enrolled as an Advocate on 7.8.2019 with registration No. HIM/107/2019 with Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh.

6. After taking into consideration pleadings and evidence on record, Rent Controller has passed eviction order against the tenant and, thereafter, appeal preferred by him has also been dismissed by Appellate Authority by passing impugned order.

7. Main ground on behalf of tenant, argued in present Revision Petition, is that landlord is not fulfilling, rather is in breach of provision of Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act, as he was occupying another non-residential house owned by him in the same building and he has rented out a shop in the year 2016 to the Bank and thus his declaration in the Rent Petition is false and he has not come to the Court with clear hands and on this sole ground the Revision Petition deserves to be allowed and Rent Petition preferred by the landlord deserves to be dismissed.

8. It has been further contended on behalf of tenant that even if bona-fide requirement for the purpose of establishing Office of an Advocate is taken as a ground for eviction, then also there is breach of provision contained in Section 14(3)(d) of the Rent Act, wherein it has been provided that the child for whom eviction is sought should not be occupying any other building for use as Office or consulting room in the urban area concerned and child should not have vacated such building without ‘sufficient cause’ after commencement of the Act in the urban area concerned. He has submitted that alongwith landlord, being a family of landlord, daughter for whose benefit eviction is being sought, can also not take a plea that she was not occupying the building in the area concerned or she vacated such building as her father i.e. landlord has rented out a shop to the Bank within five years after commen