https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189587 The third proviso to Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 did not bar a second eviction petition because the earlier accommodation shift arose from compromise, not from any prior eviction order. The first proviso also failed since the landlords were not occupying other residential premises reasonably sufficient to meet the separate needs of both brothers, and the second proviso was inapplicable because no unsupported vacation of residential accommodation within five years was proved. The expression "his own occupation" was construed liberally to cover the genuine residential needs of the landlord's family, and the landlords established a bona fide, continuing requirement. en-us Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:59:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189587 The third proviso to Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 did not bar a second eviction petition because the earlier accommodation shift arose from compromise, not from any prior eviction order. The first proviso also failed since the landlords were not occupying other residential premises reasonably sufficient to meet the separate needs of both brothers, and the second proviso was inapplicable because no unsupported vacation of residential accommodation within five years was proved. The expression "his own occupation" was construed liberally to cover the genuine residential needs of the landlord's family, and the landlords established a bona fide, continuing requirement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189587