Sanjay Karol, J.@mdashIn terms of order dated 1.7.2004, Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Kangra allowed the petition filed by the landlord (respondent herein) u/s 14(2) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Ejectment is on the ground of bonafide requirement and the premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
2. In an appeal filed by the tenants, the Appellate Authority, Kangra has upheld the finding returned by the Rent Controller. The same is evident from the impugned order dated 1.7.2004 passed by the Rent Controller.
3. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that arrears of rent as determined by the Courts below already stands deposited by them.
4. The ground of ejectment stands proved by the owner/landlord. Both the Courts below have passed the orders which are well reasoned and based on correct and complete appreciation of material on record. There is no perversity in appreciation of the same. No ground for interference is made out, save and except that petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the directions issued by the Apex Court in
5. The landlord is at liberty to file execution on all grounds including non-payment of rent.
6. Needless to add, till the time premises are occupied tenants shall continue to pay use and occupation charges equivalent to the amount of rent by 7th of each succeeding month. Arrears, if any, be paid to the respondent (landlord) within a period of two months from today.
With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.
