IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.156 of 2025 Date of Decision : 21.11.2025 Ishwar Kumar …… Petitioner Versus Vikas Sudan and others ……Respondents Coram: r The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Soni and Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Divya Raj Singh Thakur and Ms. Preetika Thakur, Advocates, vice Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1(a to 1(c).

Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

The eviction petition, in the case at hand, was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present private respondents, on

14.08.20213.

2. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the premises is required by the petitioner for carrying out repairs, which could not be carried out without the building/shop is vacated as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the premises is required bonafide for the purpose of rebuilding as alleged? OPP

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

4. Whether the premises is in good and safe condition and does not required any repair as alleged? OPR

5. Whether the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

6. Relief.”

3. The eviction petition had only been allowed on the ground of re-building vide judgment dated 16.12.2022. The Rent Controller, in the case at hand had granted the following relief:-

“28. In view of my findingst on the aforesaid issues, this petition of the petitioner for eviction of the respondent for the purpose of rebuilding is allowed. Respondent is directed to vacate the demise premiseo within 30 days from the date of this order and handed over the vacant possession of the demise premise to the petitioner. In case of her failure to vacate the premise and handover the peaceful possession, the execution will follow against her on her cost.”

4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner, on 12.01.2023. The same was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.10.2024.

5. The only plea raised by the petitioner in the present petition is with respect to the right of re-entry. The same is provided in terms of the proviso to Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, which reads as follows:-

“Provided that the tenant evicted under this clause shall have the right to re-entry on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant, to the premises in the re-built building equivalent in area to the original premises for which he was a tenant.”

6. With respect to the right of re-entry, it would be appropriate to refer to judgment dated 21.03.2023, titled Rattan Chand vs. Madhu Bharat Chadha and Another, reported in 2023(1) RCR (Rent) 605. The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced here-in-under for ready reference:-

“16. So far right of re-induction or to re-entry shall be subject to and adherence to all provisions of law applicable and prevailing at relevant point of time for such re-entry including determination of fair rent or rent mutually agreed between the parties as well as proposed user and utilization of the property by the landlords.

17. Right to re-entry of the tenant has been granted in the Act itself. However, such right shall definitely is not to be an absolute right, as the Courts have to determine the same keeping in view the given facts and circumstances of the case including the purpose for which reconstruction/rebuilding of the premises has been proposed and permitted, and also keeping in view the bonafide requirement of the landlord. In case premises after rebuilding/reconstruction is to be rented, then definitely tenants shall have right to re-entry/re-induction in the premises, in accordance with law, as recorded hereinabove. For example, if pre