BHAWANI SINGH, J. - (1.)THESE three cases (Civil Revision No. 197 of 1989, Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v. Shri S.N. Tripathi, Civil Revision No. 204 of 1989, Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v. Mrs. Chattar Singh Negi and Civil Revision No. 96 of 1990, Shri Bihari Lal Chawla v. Shri Ramesh Chander Sood) are being decided by a common judgment since the landlord is common in all of them.
(2.)THE landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant for personal requirement of the premises since he wanted to settle his family at Solan. The tenant is in occupation of one room, a kitchen, bathroom and latrine against monthly rent of Rs. 90/-, excluding water and electricity charges. The tenant has not disputed the tenancy and the rate of rent. However, the bonafide requirement of the landlord has been assailed. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord to settle at Solan was bonafide and genuine. Accordingly, eviction of the tenant from the premises was ordered. This decision was challenged before the Appellate Authority under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (shortly, 'Rent Control Act'). The appeal has been allowed on 20.6.89. According to the Appellate Court, the landlord failed to substantiate his personal requirement for the premises in dispute. According to the Appellate Court, the posting of the landlord at various places did not establish his ground for eviction of the tenant from the premises since this plea, if permitted, would defeat the provisions of the Act. The assertion of the landlord that there were educational facilities at Solan, was rejected on the basis that the landlord had not proved why such facilities were not available at Hoshiarpur or that the facilities at Solan were better than the other place. This ground, according to the Appellate Court, did not entitle the landlord to get the eviction of the tenant from the premises. Then, it was also held that the present eviction proceedings related to only one room and it had not been stated by the landlord that eviction proceedings had been filed against other tenants, namely, Mrs. Chattar Singh Negi and Shri Bihari Lal Chawla, and keeping in view the family of the landlord, the eviction against one room accommodation could not be considered to be based on bonafide personal requirement since the landlord should have initiated proceedings against all the three tenants in the premises. Finally, it has also been said that the landlord has ample accommodation available at Hoshiarpur to live with his family where he is already living. It is against this decision that the present Civil Revision has been filed under Section 24 of the Rent Control Act.
Alike Civil Revision Petition No. 197 of 1989 (Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v. Shri S.N. Tripathi), the landlord claimed eviction on the bonafide requirement to settle his family at Solan. The tenant is in occupation of three rooms, kitchen, bathroom and latrine etc. against monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The tenant has controverted the bonafide requirement of the landlord and it has been said that other portions of the building are with tenants like Mrs. Chattar Singh Negi and Shri S.N. Tripathi. The trial Court examined the matter on the basis of the evidence before it. It came to the conclusion that the landlord has established his plea for eviction on personal bonafide requirement. Accordingly, decree for eviction was passed. This decision was challenged before the Appellate Court by the tenant, however, without success. It has been held by the Appellate Court that it is for the landlord to decide where he would like to reside and settle permanently and the only thing to be seen is that his intention to do so should be bonafide. Consequently, the requirement of the landlord was held bonafide and eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed. It is in these circumstances that the tenant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition in this Court.

(3.)LIKE the other two above-mentioned cases eviction was also sought on personal requirement by the landlord from the tenant who is in occupation of two rooms, bathroom, kitchen and latrine etc. against monthly rent of Rs. 30/- The defence of the tenant, inter alia, is that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide. After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller rejected the petition on the ground, that the landlord had already obtained an order of eviction against two tenants, namely, Shri S.N. Tripathi and Shri Bihari Lal Chawla relating to accommodation consisting of four rooms, bathrooms, kitchens etc. which would be sufficient for his occupation. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority and it was dismissed on July 6, 1989. It appears from the decision that the Appellate Court found that the bonafide requirement of the landlord could not be established from the fact that he had a house at Hoshiarpur where he was living and he could not live in one room accommodation at Solan which could not in any circumstances accommodate his family. It has been noticed that two other tenants were in occupation of some other parts of the premises but it has not been said like the Rent Controller, that the accommodation to be got out of them would be sufficient for the landlord. The present revision petition has been filed by the landlord against this decision.