JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant Revision Petition has been filed under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, “The Act”) against the judgment dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Appellate Authority-I, Una, District Una, H.P. in Rent Appeal Regn. No.1/2020, whereby the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.1 Amb, District Una, H.P. in Rent Petition No. 2/2012 has been affirmed. 2. The petitioner herein faced eviction proceedings at the hands of respondent-landlord in respect of two shops in Ward No.7, Nagar Panchayat, Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. on the grounds firstly that the respondent-landlord required the shops i.e. one shop for establishing his son named Ankesh and the other for his own business and, secondly, that the tenant had not paid rent of the shops @ Rs.1500/- and Rs.1700/- per month respectively since January, 2012. 3. The petition was instituted on 17.04.2012. 4. The parties, hereafter shall be referred to as the tenant and the landlord respectively. 5. The tenant filed reply and raised legal objections as to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and estoppel etc. It was submitted that the landlord had seven shops. There were three/four other tenants of the landlord. As regards the arrears of rent, as claimed by the landlord, it was stated that an amounts of Rs.18,700/- and Rs.16,500/- were lying with the landlord as security. It was admitted that one of the shops was let out to the tenant on 23.03.2010 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and the other was let out on 18.11.2011 at the rate of Rs.1700/- per month. It was further submitted that the tenant was always ready to pay rent to the landlord and he had filed an application before learned Rent Controller on the first day of hearing showing his readiness to deposit the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.12,800/-. It was also submitted that the landlord was residing at Shimla and his nephew named Manoj Kumar had been authorized to receive the rent, who had been paid rent up to the month of January, 2012. 6. As per tenant, the landlord was permanently settled at Shimla and he had so many other shops lying vacant and thus, the landlord was not requiring the shops in possession of tenant as alleged. 7. 6. As per tenant, the landlord was permanently settled at Shimla and he had so many other shops lying vacant and thus, the landlord was not requiring the shops in possession of tenant as alleged. 7. It was also alleged that one Dinesh Kumar an influential person had threatened the tenant of being forcibly dispossessed from the shops, which had driven the tenant to file a suit for injunction against said Dinesh Kumar. In retaliation, the eviction proceedings were filed by the landlord at the instance of Dinesh Kumar. Another allegation leveled by the tenant was that the eviction proceedings were filed with a purpose to force him to enhance the rent exorbitantly. 8. Learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since January ,2012 amounting to Rs. 12,800/-? OPP 2. Whether the tenanted premises are required by the petitioner for personal use, as claimed? OPP 3. Whether the rented premises are bonafide required by the petitioner, as claimed OPP 4. Whether the petitioner has concealed true and real facts from the Court? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the petition? OPR 6. Relief. 9. Issues No. 1 to 3 were answered in affirmative and the eviction of the tenant was ordered on both the grounds. It was held that the landlord required the shops bonafide for his personal use. In addition, the tenant was held to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. May, 2012 to 31.10.2018 at the rate of Rs.1500/- and Rs.1700/- per month respectively alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. The arrears were calculated as Rs.2,72,064/-. It was held that the tenant would not be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent in case he deposited the arrears of rent within 30 days. 10. The appeal filed by the tenant against the aforesaid eviction order has also been dismissed vide impugned order passed by learned Appellate Authority. The findings of fact were affirmed and the eviction on both the grounds was maintained. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 12. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. The findings of fact were affirmed and the eviction on both the grounds was maintained. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 12. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, representing the tenant has contended that the eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement was wrong and illegal as both the authorities i.e. the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had ignored and brushed aside the absence of pleadings constituting jurisdictional facts. He would submit that as per Section 14 of the Act, it had to be pleaded by the landlord that he was not in occupation of any other similar premises in the same urban area and further that he had not vacated any such premises within five years without sufficient cause. The eviction petition filed by the landlord was completely silent on this aspect. It was further contended that in absence of necessary pleadings and proof, the eviction could not have been ordered on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, representing the landlord, would contend that since the tenant had not raised any objection before learned Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, he cannot be allowed to raise this objection in the revision petition under Section 24 (5) of the Act, wherein this Court has limited jurisdiction. He further submitted that the tenant could have proved the existence of any fact, which would disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. 14. Relevant extract of Section 14 of the Act reads as under: “14. Eviction of tenants.- (l) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise, whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 2. Eviction of tenants.- (l) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise, whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 2. xxx xxx xxx (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession: (a) in the case of a residential or non-residential building, if- (i) he requires it for his own occupation: Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned: Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area; or…” 15. The case of the landlord was that the tenant was inducted in one of the shops on 23.03.2010 and in the other on 01.11.2011. The petition was instituted on 17.04.2012 and thus on facts it was indisputably established that the petition had been filed within five years of the induction of tenant. The embargo that the landlord should not have vacated such a building within five years of the filing of the petition clearly stares at the face of landlord. It was not the case of landlord that he had inducted the tenant in two shops for some sufficient cause despite getting its possession. 16. In Onkar Nath vs. Ved Vyas 1979 ILR (HP) 1 followed by Tara Chand Vs Baij Nath 1993(1) RLR 119 it has clearly been held that the pleadings and proof of aforesaid proviso appended to Section 14 were mandatory. 17. Thus, the eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal bonafide requirement has been ordered by both the Courts in utter derogation of the mandatory requirements of law. 18. The question is whether this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act, can interfere in the eviction order, on aforesaid ground, when the tenant had not raised such a plea either before Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority? 19. 18. The question is whether this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act, can interfere in the eviction order, on aforesaid ground, when the tenant had not raised such a plea either before Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority? 19. In the facts of the case, it has been found that the error has been committed by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority as to the basic jurisdictional facts and for such reason a case for interference is clearly made out. Reference in this regard can be made to the following extract in judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R. Sathyamoorthy, (1999) 3 SCC 115 “20. ……It has been held by this Court in Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi [ AIR 1959 SC 492 ] that even in matters arising under Section 115 CPC, the High Court can certainly decide whether jurisdictional facts have been correctly decided by the subordinate court or not, on the basis of the well-known principles laid down by Lord Esher, M.R. in R. v. CIT [(1888) 21 QBD 313 …..” 20. As regards the arrears of rent, admittedly, the tenant has not deposited the arrears calculated by learned Rent Controller within 30 days of the order. The tenant has not been able to show that the arrears as calculated by learned Rent Controller were not correct. What has been argued on behalf of the tenant is that he had tendered the rent on the first date of hearing before learned Rent Controller and thus, in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act he could not be evicted on the said ground. 21. The record reveals that the tenant had tendered the arrears of rent as claimed in the petition on the first date of hearing without calculation of interest thereon. The Act provides that in order to avoid eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, the tenant had to tender the rent due i.e. arrears plus interest accrued thereon in accordance with the Act on the first date of hearing. Since, the tenant had not tendered the rent due on the first date, he cannot take the benefit of statutory provision. Since, the tenant had not tendered the rent due on the first date, he cannot take the benefit of statutory provision. Further, as noticed above, the tenant did not even deposit the rent due, as calculated by the learned Rent Controller, within 30 days of the order passed of eviction. 22. Lastly, it has been contended on behalf of the tenant that the petition was bad for multifariousness of causes of action. As per tenant, a composite eviction petition was not maintainable for two separate shops occupied by the tenant under the different tenancies. 23. The argument so raised deserves to be rejected for the reason that the tenant has not raised such a plea either before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority. In any case, to succeed in such argument the tenant had to show prejudice, if any, suffered by him. In my considered view, the tenant has not suffered any prejudice in the facts of the case, rather, the tenant had acquiesced in the procedure adopted during the trial of the case. The tenant himself had offered the rent on the first date of hearing as alleged by him. 24. Further, there cannot be any perceivable prejudice to the tenant as the ground of personal bonafide requirement already has been held to be not available to the landlord on the reasons stated above. 25. Even otherwise also the tenant has also lost the right, if any, to raise such an issue, having failed to show his bonafide in complying with the eviction order. Admittedly, the tenant had not deposited the rent due within 30 days. 26. In light of above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed. The eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the landlord is set-aside and the eviction on the other ground i.e. arrears of rent is affirmed. The tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shops to the landlord in question within three months from the date of passing of this order. 27. Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s) if any.