JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.— Aggrieved from the order, dated 12th March, 1981 of the Appellate Authority, under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act), the petitioner (landlord) has filed this revision petition. 2. The facts are that Sohan Lal respondent is a tenant of the petitioner in a residential premises in Cordel Cottage, Jakhu, Simla. The petitioner filed an eviction petition against the tenant under Section 14 of the Act on the grounds: (a) That the respondent (tenant) has not paid the rent; (b) That the petitioner is a member of the General Reserve Engineering Force (subject to Army Act) of the Union of India and requires the premises for the occupation of his family members and he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 and is posted in a non-family station. The designation of the petitioner is of Executive Engineer which is equivalent to the rank of Major : (c) That the respondent ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than twelve months without reasonable cause ; (d) That the respondent is misusing the premises by keeping it locked and unattended which has impaired the material utility ; and (e) That the respondent is guilty of such acts which are of continuous cause of nuisance to the occupiers of other sets in the building. 3. The petition was contested by the respondent, and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent. If so, to what extent ? Opp. 2. Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute bond fide for his use and occupation, as alleged : Opp. 3. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in question continuously for a period of 12 months, as alleged ? Opp. 4. Whether the respondent has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are of nuisance to the occupiers of building in the neighbourhood, as alleged : Opp. 5. Whether the respondent has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises in question : Opp. 6. Relief. 4. The Rent Controller, Simla, decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner and issues 3, 4 and 5 against the petitioner. 5. Whether the respondent has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises in question : Opp. 6. Relief. 4. The Rent Controller, Simla, decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner and issues 3, 4 and 5 against the petitioner. As a result of these findings the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant vide his order, dated 27th September, 1979. 5. The respondent filed an appeal with the Appellate Authority (under the Act). The Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller on issues 1, 3, 4 and 5, but reversed the finding of issue No. 2, and as a result of his finding on issue No. 2, accepted the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the eviction application of the petitioner. 6. Shri B. Sita Ram counsel for the petitioner (Landlord) contended that the finding of the Appellate Authority on issue No. 2 is not based upon proper appreciation of the various provisions of Section 14. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is only required to prove the ingredients of clause (e) of Section 14 (3) (a) (i) and once these conditions are proved the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14 (3) (c). 7. Shri Kaliash Chand Sood counsel for the respondent (tenant) contended that after proving the various ingredients of Section 14 (3) (a) (i) (e) the landlord has further to prove that his claim is bonafide and reference was made to the provisions of Section 14 (3) (b). It was also contended that the mother of the petitioner has since died during the pendency of this litigation. 8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsels and have also perused the records. 9. It was also contended that the mother of the petitioner has since died during the pendency of this litigation. 8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsels and have also perused the records. 9. The relevant provisions of Section 14 read as follows : "3(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession— (i) in the case of residential building, if— (a) to (d) (e) the landlord is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India and requires it for the occupation of his family and if he produces a certificate of the prescribed authority referred to in Section 7 of the Indian Soldiers, (Litigation) Act, 1925 (4 of 1925) that he is serving under special condition within the meaning of Section 3 of that Act or is posted in a non-family station. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-clause— (1) the certificate of the prescribed authority shall be conclusive evidence that the landlord is serving under special conditions, or is posted in a non-family station ; (2) "family" means parents and such relations of the landlord as ordinarily live with him and are dependent upon him ; Section 14 (3) (b) reads as follows : "3(b) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land on suck date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application. Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. Section 14 (3) (c) reads as follows : "3 (c) Where an application is made under sub-clause (i) (c) of clause (a), it shall be disposed of, as far as may be within a period of one month and if the claim of the landlord is accepted, the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on the date to be specified in the order and such date shall not be later than fifteen days from the date of the order. 10. There is not dispute between the parties counsel that the petitioner is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India. It is also admitted that the petitioner has produced a certificate of the prescribed authority under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, to the effect that he was serving under special condition within the meaning of section 3 of that Act, and was posted at a non-family station on 19th May, 1978 (vide certificate Exhibit PW l/A). The certificate, date 16th July, 1976 (Exhibit PW l/B) further proves that the petitioner was serving in the field area with Headquarters (Project) Dantak as an Executive Engineer (Mechanical). As these certificates are conclusive evidence, therefore, it is proved that on the date of the filing of the application, i. e. 14th March, 1977, the petitioner was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India and was serving under special condition within the meaning of section 3 of the Act or was posted in a non-family station- The petitioner also appeared as his own witness and supported these facts. Petitioner also stated that he required the disputed premises for the occupation of his family. 11. According to the petitioners counsel after proving the ingredients of clause (e) {supra), the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction and he is not required to satisfy the Controller that his claim is bona fide. 12. I am of the view that Section 14 (s) (b) of the Act is applicable to all the eviction applications filed before the Rent Controller under Section 14(3) (a) and after proving the grounds of eviction, the landlord is required to satisfy the Controller that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. It is only after such satisfaction of the Controller that an order of eviction of the tenant is to be passed. It is only after such satisfaction of the Controller that an order of eviction of the tenant is to be passed. The only difference between clause (b) and clause (c) of Section 14 (3) is that under clause (c) when the landlord is a member of the Armed Forces, the Controller should and is expected to dispose of the eviction application within one month, and the time to be given to the tenant for vacating the premises is not to exceed 15 days while under clause (d) the Controller may decided the eviction application In due course and also give reasonable time to the tenant to vacate the premises so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. Section 14 (3) (c) does not suggest that a landlord whose claim for eviction is not bona fide is entitled to an order of eviction simply because he has proved the grounds mentioned in Section 14(3) (a) (i) (e). Thus if the Controller is not satisfied about the bona fide claim of the landlord then he shall make an order rejecting the application under Section 14 (3) (b) of the Act. On these grounds I disagree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. The Appellate Authority has discussed in detail the evidence of the parties and he has come to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner is not bona fide. The evidence was again perused during the course of arguments and I am of the view that the Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the evidence. According to the statement of the petitioner (PW l), his family resides in premises No. 81. The Mall, Simla, which constitute two rooms and one verandah. The mother of the petitioner also lived with them. The petitioner along with his two brothers and mother also owns property known as 78, 80 and 81, The Mall, Simla, and in this property there are lour residential sets. The petitioner has further admitted that he has filed eviction petitions against Dr. S. G. Jain who was occupying residential Set No. 78. The Mall, Simla, and one Shri Madan Mohan Mohindroo who was residing in Cordel Cottage. The petitioner has further admitted that he has filed eviction petitions against Dr. S. G. Jain who was occupying residential Set No. 78. The Mall, Simla, and one Shri Madan Mohan Mohindroo who was residing in Cordel Cottage. The present eviction petition was tiled in March, 1977 and according to the statement of the petitioner a portion of Cordel Cottage was vacated by Shri S. K. Chopra and was rented out to one Shri R. K. Sood somewhere in February/March 1977. Roshan Lal (PW2) states that Sarvshri Chopra, Mohindroo and Sood have been residing in Cordel Cottage, The evidence of the respondent consisting of S. K. Chopra (RW1), Tilak Raj (RW2) and Sohan Lai respondent (RW3) also proves that the petitioner has been filing eviction petitions against the tenants and that certain sets of Cordel Cottage were vacated and were rented out by the petitioner to other tenants. 14. It is thus proved that the family of the petitioner has been residing in residential premises No. 81, The Mall, Simla along with petitioners mother, and the petitioner filed eviction petitions against various tenants or he rented out the portions of Cordel Cottage to other tenants just before filing the present eviction petition. It was admitted before me by the petitioner that his mother is now dead. 15. Another important fact in the case is that the certificate Exhibit PW1/A issued on 19th May, 1978 mentions that the petitioner requires upper fiat with attic of 78. The Mall, Simla, for separate occupation of his family, Similarly, the certificate, Exhibit PW1/B issued on I7ch July, 1976 mentions that the petitioner is a resident of 81. The Mali, Simla. The two certificates read together clearly prove that the petitioner wanted the upper flat with attic of 78, The Mall, Simla, for the occupation of his family and not the disputed premises. These facts collectively prove that the petitioner wants to evict his tenants from most of the premises owned by him on the simple ground that he is a member of the Armad Forces and not on the ground of bona fide requirement of the petitioner for the occupation of his family. Thus, I hold that the claim of the petitioner for eviction of the respondent is not a bona fide claim and I affirm the finding of the Appellate Authority on issue No. 2. 16. Thus, I hold that the claim of the petitioner for eviction of the respondent is not a bona fide claim and I affirm the finding of the Appellate Authority on issue No. 2. 16. On the other grounds of eviction mentioned in the petition both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority after discussing the evidence in detail have come to a concurrent finding and after perusal of the evidence. I do not find any ground to interfere with these findings. 17. As a result of the above discussion, the present revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.