1 ( 2025:HHC:8353 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 85 of 2014 Date of Decision: March 26, 2025 Master Moksh (Minor) ….Petitioner Versus Suresh Chand (deceased) through LRs & others ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: M/s Vivek Sharma and Varun Chauhan, Advocates, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(c) and 2 to 7. Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral). This Revision Petition has been preferred against judgment dated 25.03.2014 passed by Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Rent Appeal No.30 of 2012, titled as Kapil Behl and another vs. Suresh Chand Bisht & others, whereby eviction of the petitioners on two grounds by Rent Controller, Court No.1, Mandi, H.P., vide order dated 24.11.2011 in Rent Act No.2 of 2009, titled as Suresh Chand & others vs. Kapil Behl & others, has been passed. 2. Parties herein are being referred as per their original status as tenants and landlords. 3. Admittedly, Rent Controller had passed eviction order against tenants on the grounds that it was bonafidely required for reconstruction and rebuilding as well as arrears of rent of a sum of `2975/- alongwith increased rate of interest w.e.f. June 1999. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:8353 ) 4. Learned counsel for the tenants submits that without going to the merits of the case, tenant(s) shall be satisfied in case of granting right to re-entry to the tenants as provided in 1st Proviso to Section 14(3) C of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Act), is protected. 5. Learned counsel for the landlords submits that prayer made on behalf of the tenants may be accepted, but with clarification that it will not have any impact upon eviction made on second ground, i.e. arrears of rent if tenants have failed to deposit the same within stipulated time as required under law. 6. Considering aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, orders of eviction passed against the tenants, impugned herein, are upheld with modification/clarification that tenant shall have right of re-entry in terms of First Proviso to Section 14(3) C of Rent Act, as explained in judgment dated 29.09.2023, passed in Civil Revision No.27 of 2023, titled as Prakash Kaur vs. Rajwant Singh Manta, particularly in paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof. 7. The aforesaid modification/clarification shall not have any impact upon eviction order on the second ground of eviction as well as consequences for non deposit of arrears of rent, if not deposited, in the prescribed time. 8. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. March 26, 2025 (Purohit)