The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority preferred a Revision to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
According to the Appellate Authority, the ruling of this Court in Metalware Co. case rendered interpreting Section 14 1 b of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act may number apply to the relevant provision in the Himachal Pradesh Act, which did number companytemplate the companydition of the building as one of the relevant factors for the purpose of ordering eviction on the facts of the case.
On the basis of the above companyclusions, the Appellate Authority by reversing the decision of the Rent Controller allowed the application for eviction.
The respondent landlord aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction petition preferred C.M.A. No.20 8/4 of 1990 before the Appellate Authority, Solan.
The Appellate Authority found that Section 14 3 c of the Act applies to the tenanted land as well and, therefore, it is all the more reason that the Rent Controller was number right in applying the decision of this Court in Metalware Co. case.
The appellate Authority also found that what was let out to the tenant was number a building as defined in Section 2 b of the act, but an open plot measuring 100 x 95 with a shed thereon.
The Appellate Authority on an analysis of Section 14 3 c of the Act and in view of the fact that the appellant tenant had number disputed the availability of the resources with the landlord and companypliance of other requirements except regarding the dilapidated companydition of the building, found that the Rent Controller was number right in dismissing the eviction petition.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
