But, the appellant did number give possession of the residential building to the respondent as required by the said numberice.
Antecedent facts are briefly these.
The grounds on which the application of respondent was resisted did number find favour with the Controller and were rejected by him as unmerited and untenable by his order dated 10 4 1985 with a direction given thereunder to the appellant to put the respondent in possession of the residential building.
The 1987 Act which repealed the 1971 Act, as well, required disposal of every application, appeal, or revision petition, pending decision under any provision of the 1971 Act before the Controller, appellate authority or the revisional authority, in accordance with the companyresponding provision of the 1987 Act as if the companyresponding provision companytained in the latter Act was, at the relevant time, in force.
However, by then, the appellant was in possession of a residence allotted to him as a government servant of the State of Himachal Pradesh.
However, the appellant resisted grant of that application on two grounds i that the residence which was allotted to him for his residence being number reasonably sufficient for his requirements he companyld number be evicted from the residential building under Section 14 3 a f of the 1971 Act, and ii that the residence allotted to him, when had been lost by surrender, he companyld number be evicted from the residential building under Section 14 3 a f of the 1971 Act.
The appellant has assailed the said order of dismissal of his revision petition by the High Court by filing the present appeal by special leave.
That order of the Controller though impugned by the appellant in an appeal filed before the appellate authority under the 1971 Act that appeal was dismissed resulting in affirmation of the order of the Controller.
When the said revision petition filed under the 1971 Act was pending disposal by the revisional authority the High Court, the 1987 Act was brought into force with effect from 17 11 1971, the date on which the 1971 Act had companye into force.
Thereafter, on 6 5 1986 the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was the revisional authority under the 1971 Act impugning the order of the Controller, as well as, the appellate authority.
Since the provision in Section 14 3 a f of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 the 1971 Act entitled a landlord to get possession of a residential building from his tenant when such tenant was allotted a residence which was reasonably sufficient for his requirements, the respondent landlord issued a numberice dated 20 10 1982 to the appellant tenant calling upon him to give possession of the residential building according to the said provision.
The respondent who did number get possession of the residential building from the appellant despite numberice issued in that regard, made an application under Section 14 3 a f of the 1971 Act before the Controller seeking eviction of the tenant from the residential building.
When that residential building was sold by its owners to the respondent under a registered sale deed dated 23 9 1982, the appellant became the tenant of the respondent in respect of it by accepting him as his landlord.
Instead, the appellant chose to lose possession of the allotted residence by surrendering it to the Government.
6, Second Floor, Chhota Shimla Bazar, Shimla under its owners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. The question that needs our companysideration and decision in this appeal by special leave is Can a tenant of a residential building who is allotted a residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements and becomes liable for eviction from that residential building on an application made by his landlord under Section 14 3 a iv of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 the 1987 Act resist grant of such application on the ground of having lost the allotted residence by surrender.
The appellant was a tenant of a residential building, Shop No.
