Petitioner/tenant, invoking Section 24 (5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (in short ‘Rent Act’), has preferred this revision petition against judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the District Judge exercising the power of Appellate Authority under Rent Act in Rent Appeal No.10-S/14 of 2020 titled Surinder Chauhan vs. Jai Lal Bragta, whereby order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Rent Controller Shimla in Rent Petitioner No 79-2 of 2015 titled as Jai Lal Bragta vs. Surinder Chauhan, has been affirmed by holding that premises is required bonafide by the landlord for his personal use and occupation so as to settle his son and start new business and accordingly tenant has been directed to hand over vacant possession of demised premises to the landlord.

Parties, herein-after for convenience, shall be referred as per their status before the Rent Controller i.e. landlord and tenant.

On 5.5.20215, landlord filed a petition under Section 14 of the Rent Act for eviction of tenant Surinder Chauhan from the premises in reference on the ground that premises was required by landlord for his personal use and occupation with a view to establish and set up a business in the same to settle his son Vikram Bragta in the said business and also to augment his income by making better use of property with further assertion that upper two floors of the same building and other premises of landlord were not commercially viable and suitable for business activity because those were not on road head and landlord was not occupying any other non-residential premises building owned by him in urban area nor he had vacated any such commercial premises shop within five years prior to filing of petition, suitable for starting and running the business proposed to be run by the landlord for settling his son and augmenting his income.

Rent petition was contested by tenant by filing reply with assertion that premises was initially rented out at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per month but on compelling by the landlord, the tenant had to enhance the rent for Rs. 2000/- and thereafter, again under the threat of eviction, in the month of May 2014, rent was enhanced at the rate of Rs.14,000/-

per month and petition had been filed with motive to enhance the rent, and that premises was not required bonafide by the landlord for his bonafide requirement. Further that tenancy was created in favour of Capital Computers, through Surinder Chauhan.

It was also stated in the reply that tenancy was in the name and style of Webtech Computer Centre and Surinder Chauhan was running the Computer Centre in the name and style of Webtech Computer Centre whereas tenant in the eviction petition has been reflected as Surinder Chauhan instead of Webtech Computer Centre.

After completion of pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was led by parties.

Considering the material on record, the Rent Controller had passed impugned eviction order against Surinder Chauhan.

Taking into consideration the various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, appeal preferred by Surinder Chauhan was dismissed by the Appellate Authority,

Present petition has been preferred mainly on the grounds that non-residential premises was let out in favour of entity M/s Webtech Computer Centre under agreement dated 5.12.2012 but the landlord had failed to implead M/s Webtech Computer Centre as a tenant and eviction petition was filed against Surinder Chauhan who was only a representative of M/s Webtech Computer Centre and, therefore, for this material defect, eviction petition was not maintainable; further that

tenancy was created by way of agreement Ext.PW1/A which was in the name of entity ‘Capital Computer’ and Surinder Chauhan had signed the agreement as Managing Director of Capital Computer and Capital Computer was not impleaded as party and thus also, eviction petition was not maintainable as there was no relationship between landlord and Surinder Chauhan in individual capacity; further that bonafide requirement to set