Prabhdeep Singh vs Kanta And Others on 25 July, 2019
bonafide requirements, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, (b)
and, with this Court, making a verdict, upon, Civil Revision No.
127 of 2008, titled as Prabhdeep Singh vs. Kanta and
others, has, upon making an interpretation, of, the apt
statutory provisions, borne, in, Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the H.P.
Urban Rent Control Act, (c) more particularly, vis-a-vis, the
connotation carried by the phrase "he requires it for his own
occupation" as, occurring therewithin, (d) hence has ascribed
qua therewith a signification, qua, it, also enveloping
therewithin, the hereat strived, for, hence, bonafide
requirement also, of, the landlord, and, conspicuously
appertaining, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, becoming
required, to hence, house therein, his staff or servants, (e) given
his, afore requirement becoming evidently imperative, it
spurring, from, his status. Consequently, the staff or servants,
upon, whose services, the landlord, is, dependent, reiteratedly
do fall within the ambit, of, the statutory phrase "he requires it
for his occupation", (f) and, hence also render the landlord
hence empowered, to, within the domains, and, ambits thereof,
::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP
5
plead and prove, the afore bonafide requirements, vis-a-vis, the
demised premises emphatically, when, his dependence, upon,
them also enables him to make provisions, for, theirs becoming
.