https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189058 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. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:01:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189058 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189058