https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189058 The Supreme Court interpreted the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, in a case involving possession given to a competent authority under the Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972. The Court held that vacating a building under a requisition order by the competent authority does not constitute vacation without sufficient cause under the Rent Control Act. The appellant, who had a genuine need to occupy the premises, was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside lower court orders, and directed the appellant to approach Rent Control authorities for further action, with each party bearing their own costs. 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 The Supreme Court interpreted the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, in a case involving possession given to a competent authority under the Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972. The Court held that vacating a building under a requisition order by the competent authority does not constitute vacation without sufficient cause under the Rent Control Act. The appellant, who had a genuine need to occupy the premises, was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside lower court orders, and directed the appellant to approach Rent Control authorities for further action, with each party bearing their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189058