HIROO RAM Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the tenant under the respondents, feeling aggrieved by the ejectment order dated 1-10-1997 passed against him by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla, has come up before this Court by way of the present revision petition under Section 24(5), H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act.

(2.) THE tenanted premises consists of a four rooms set on the first floor of the building known as "Comely Bank" in Station Ward, Shimla. The respondents sought the eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises on the ground that such promises were bona fide required by the respondent No. 1 Smt. Nirmala Devi for her own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of her other family members.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 24-6-1992 dismissed the petition on the basis of findings recorded under issue No. 3 that the petition lacked material particulars. While coming to such conclusion, the learned Rent Controller placed reliance on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath, 1992(2) RCR(Rent) 647 (P&H) : 1994 (Suppl) Sim. LC 87. No specific findings were recorded by the learned Rent Controller on the merits of the case as to bona fide need of the respondents of the tenanted premises for self use and occupation,