Compelled vacation under requisition proceedings is sufficient cause and does not bar eviction for personal occupation.

Compelled vacation of premises under a requisition order was treated as vacation with sufficient cause, not voluntary abandonment, for the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The Rent Control authority could not re-examine the merits or validity of the requisition proceedings, and the landlord's failure to object there did not alter the character of the departure. On the facts, the statutory bar to eviction for personal occupation did not apply, as the landlord's exit was caused by legal compulsion and the finding that he would not occupy the premises was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a landlord who vacates premises in compliance with a requisition order under the Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972 can be said to have vacated the building "without sufficient cause" within the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, so as to bar an eviction claim based on personal occupation.

Analysis: The expression "vacated such building without sufficient cause" in the second proviso was construed liberally and in its ordinary sense. A compelled vacation pursuant to a requisition order was held not to be voluntary abandonment of the premises but a surrender under legal compulsion. The validity or invalidity of the requisition order was considered irrelevant to the Rent Control inquiry, because the Rent Control authorities could not examine the merits of the requisition proceedings. The absence of an objection in the requisition proceedings did not change the character of the vacation, since the landlord's departure was still brought about by the requisition process. The Court also rejected the concurrent finding that the landlord would not occupy the premises, holding that the absence of any other urban residential building and the finding of sufficient cause removed the statutory bar.

Conclusion: Vacation of the premises in compliance with requisition proceedings was not "without sufficient cause", and the landlord was not barred by the second proviso from seeking eviction for personal occupation.

Ratio Decidendi: A vacation of premises compelled by a lawful requisition order constitutes sufficient cause for the purposes of the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, and the rent authority cannot deny eviction by re-examining the requisition order or treating the compelled vacation as a disqualifying voluntary surrender.

---