(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.
(2.) THE eviction of the revision petitioners, who are the tenants in certain premises situated in Boileauganj locality of Shimla town was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the premises are bonafide required by the landlords for rebuilding and reconstruction, which cannot be carried out unless the building is vacated. The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence led by the parties found that the requirement pleaded by the landlords was bonafide and consequently ordered the eviction on the aforesaid ground.
(3.) NO doubt, neither of the two landlords entered the witness box, but their attorney, who happens to be the father of one of the landlords and the husband of the other, entered the witness box. This attorney is supposed to be fully aware of the facts of the case. The landlord, who is the son of the attorney, is stated to be serving in the Indian Navy and because of that he could not enter the witness box. The other (landlady) is stated to be an old woman. Under these circumstances and particularly the fact that the attorney is closely related to the landlords and is in fact the head of the family, I do not think that an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the landlords for not entering the witness box.