JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J—There is no merit in this revision petition. The petitioner is the landlady, who filed a petition for eviction under section 14 (2) (v) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 on the ground that the respondent had ceased to occupy the disputed premises for a continuous period of 12 months and more without a reasonable cause. According to the petitioner, the previous occupant by name Dr. Swaroop had vacated the premises in June-July, 1989 and the premises were allotted to another employee only in February 1991 2. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the petitioner and rejected the claim of the University that it was prevented from allotting the premises to any person by virtue of a court order passed in a suit. The Rent Controller held that the premises were vacant from 3-4-1989 to 16-5-1990 and thus the requirement of section 14 (2^ (v) was satisfied. The aggrieved University filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority. 3 The Appellate Authority has taken the view that the Rent Controller had gone beyond the pleadings of the petitioner inasmuch as he has chosen to hold that the premises were vacant from 3-4-1989 when the specific plea of the petitioner was that the previous occupant vacated the premises somewhere in June July, 1989, The Appellate Authority has also held that the Rent Controller was in error in permitting the petitioner to adduce rebuttal evidence after the respondent closed its evidence. Thirdly, the Appellate Authority has held that in view of the order of the Civil Court, which was passed on 16-5-1990, the University had a reasonable cause for not allotting the premises to any other member of the staff. Consequently, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order of eviction. 4. It is vehemently argued before me by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Authority Authority is in error in thinking that the averment in the petition for eviction that the previous occupant vacated the premises in June-July, 1989 was conclusive and it was not open to the petitioner to prove that the premises became vacant even in April 1989. According to learned Counsel, the said fact was proved by a document of the University itself, which was produced by an employee of the University while adducing rebuttal evidence. According to learned Counsel, the said fact was proved by a document of the University itself, which was produced by an employee of the University while adducing rebuttal evidence. Learned Counsel contends that when there is evidence of the actual date of vacating the premises by the previous occupant, namely, Dr Swaroop, the Court was justified in taking that date into consideration and holding that the premises was vacant from that date. 5. Secondly, it is contended that for one purpose, the Appellate Authority has placed reliance on the rebuttal evidence adduced and one of the documents filed by the witness, but for another purpose, the Appellate Authority has taken the view that it is not admissible in evidence. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has misdirected himself in this regard 6 The third contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Civil Court did not prevent the allotment of premises to non-teaching staff and that it prevented allotment only to persons who are junior to the plaintiff in that case Hence, according to learned Counsel, the University could well have allotted the premises to a person, who will not be falling within the scope of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court. According to learned Counsel on this ground the order of the Appellate Authority requires to be set aside and the order of the Rent Controller to be restored. 7. I am unable to accept the contention of learned Counsel that the order of the Civil Court could be interpreted in the manner in which he wants this Court to interpret it. The question before me is whether the requirement of section 14 (1) (v) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act is satisfied. Under that section what has to be proved before the Court is that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building or rented land for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause The crucial expression is without reasonable cause. The said expression has to be understood subjectively and pot objectively. It is a question, which has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case What may appear to be a reasonable cause to one man under certain circumstances may not be a reasonable cause for another man under different circumstances. The said expression has to be understood subjectively and pot objectively. It is a question, which has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case What may appear to be a reasonable cause to one man under certain circumstances may not be a reasonable cause for another man under different circumstances. It is not a question, which can be deeded by interpretation of the order of the Civil Court according to ones will. The question is whether the University had bona fide understood the order of the Civil Court while it claimed to follow the order and failed to allot the premises to any other member. In this case, the order of the Civil Court is extracted by the Appellate Authority in his order, which reads as follows : "This Court is satisfied and a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs and doth order that you the above named defendants/respondent are restrained from making allotment of houses to any person whatsoever who is junior in service to the plaintiffs i e. to any person who has joined service in the University after 28-4-1981 and 13-7-1981 respectively, till further orders." 8. Thus, the order as such does not make any distinction between the teaching staff and non-teaching staff the order uses the expression any person whatsoever who is junior in service to the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the University was very well justified in thinking that the allotment cannot be made even to non-teaching staff But at the same time, the question is not whether the order of the Civil Court has been correctly understood by the University. The question is whether it has been reasonably understood by the University. On the facts and circumstances of the case, no exception can be taken to the way the University has under stood the order that it stayed its hand from allotting the premises to any other member. 9. Hence, it follows that the University had reasonable cause for not allotting the premises to any other member of the staff. Consequently, it cannot be held that the requirement of section 14 (2) (v) of the Act is satisfied in this case. 10. In that view of the matter, the other two contentions raised by learned Counsel in the arguments at length do.ppt fall for consideration. They are wholly unnecessary to be decided in this case. Consequently, it cannot be held that the requirement of section 14 (2) (v) of the Act is satisfied in this case. 10. In that view of the matter, the other two contentions raised by learned Counsel in the arguments at length do.ppt fall for consideration. They are wholly unnecessary to be decided in this case. Even assuming that the view taken by the Appellate Authority on those two questions is erroneous, the view of the Appellate Authority that the University had a reasonable cause for not allotting the premises to some person for a period of twelve months and more is correct In fact, the order of the Civil Court was passed in May 1990. Even if the date of vacating the premises by the previous occupant is taken as 3-4-1989, the non-allotment of the premises till 16 5-1900 cannot be considered to be unreasonable, under the circumstances of the case, 11. In the result, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. CM. P. No, 139o/1997: In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, this application is also dismissed Revision Petition dismissed. -