JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The landlord/petitioner herein (for short "the landlord") instituted an eviction petition bearing No. 6-2 of 2009 before the learned Rent Controller, Court No. (7), Shimla, H.P, wherethrough he seeks eviction, of, the tenant/ respondent herein (for short "tenant"), from the demised premises (described in detail in Rent Petition), on, two statutory grounds (a) in as much, as, hers falling into arrears of rent, and, (b) the demised premises becoming bonafidely required by the landlord for (i) ensuring, the, residing therein, of, his grandson, who provenly as unraveled, by, Ex. PW-3/A, being paraplegic, and, hence requiring his being carried in a wheelchair, and, (ii) the demised premises rather holding all the requisite facilities, for, his grandson becoming housed therein. However, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction, of, the tenant, from, the demised premises, only on the ground, of hers, falling into arrears of rent, yet it declined to order, for, eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises, on the afore latter ground, vis-a-vis, the landlord requiring the premises, for, the use, of his afore paraplegic grandson. 2. The aggrieved landlord hence constituted against the afore dis-affirmative order, as, made by the learned trial Court, an appeal bearing No. 34-S/14 of 2013/12, before the learned District Judge, Shimla, and, the latter Court, declined to make any interference, vis-a-vis, the verdict hence recorded by the learned trial Court, and, obviously hence recorded, a, verdict in affirmation thereto. 3. The landlord feeling aggrieved, from, the afore order(s), has constituted thereagainst, the, instant Civil Revision Petition, before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the landlord, does not press, for the initial ground, set forth, in the apposite eviction petition, hence for seeking, the, eviction of the tenant, and, appertaining to hers falling, into, arrears of rent, becoming meted any adjudication, as, he fairly submits before this Court, that, the entire quantum of arrears of rent, as became determined, under, the impugned award, has become deposited, within, the statutorily ordained period of time. Consequently, the only surviving controversy, hence appertains, to, the validity of the declining(s), to, the landlord, the relief appertaining, to his striving to seek eviction, of, the tenant, from, the demised premises, on anvil, of his bonafidely requiring them. 5. A perusal of Ex. Consequently, the only surviving controversy, hence appertains, to, the validity of the declining(s), to, the landlord, the relief appertaining, to his striving to seek eviction, of, the tenant, from, the demised premises, on anvil, of his bonafidely requiring them. 5. A perusal of Ex. PW-3/A, makes palpable disclosures vis-a-vis the grandson of the landlord, becoming afflicted, with critical paraplegic, and, hence becoming driven, to, become wheelchaired. 6. However, both the Courts below declined relief upon the afore referred ground, hence to the landlord, on the ground, that, the premises adjoining, to the demised premises, becoming uncontrovertedly hence vacated within five years from the date of filing of the eviction petition, and, yet thereafter the afore vacated premises hence adjoining the demised premises, rather becoming leased, by the landlord, to one Mr. G.S Adhikari, and, thereupon a conclusion became formed, by both, the Courts below, vis-a-vis, the afore pleaded statutory ground, becoming ingrained, with, malafides. 7. For the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the, declining of the afore relief to the landlord, does not suffer, from any vice of any critical or any grave legal frailty, (i) as though, it, became pleaded, in, the petition, vis-a-vis, the bonafide necessities, of, the paraplegic grandson, of, the petitioner becoming housed in the demised premises, wherein rather apart from the facilities of toilet, kitchen and bathroom, being borne, it also hence holding, flush facility, imperatively, for facilitating, the, paraplegic grandson, of the petitioner, becoming housed therein, yet, (ii) it remained unpleaded therein vis-a-vis, the afore facilities rather not existing, in, the premises vacated within five years, from, the date, of, filing, of, the the eviction petition, and, whereafter, the afore vacated premises became leased, to, one Mr. G.S Adhikari, hence, by the landlord, (iii) thereupon the omission of rearings, of, the imperative apposite statutory ingredients, in, the apposite eviction petition, does obviously, tantamount, to, suppression of vital statutory facts, rendering hence, ingrained the petition concerned, with, a pervasive vice of malafide(s), (iv) conspicuously, when the afore cogent and unbelied evidence, hence unveiling qua breach becoming visited, upon, the apposite peremptory statutory ingredients, makes its, imminent unblemished upsurgings, whereupon, the landlord became disentitled, to, on the afore ground, hence seek eviction, of, the tenant. 8. 8. Moreover, the landlord, has, not ensured, the housing of his grandson, in the premises rather vacated within five years, from, the date of the eviction petition hence becoming instituted, and, premises whereof became leased, to, one Mr. G.S Adhikari, by, the landlord, (a) thereupon, it appears qua his intending to vacate, the, demised premises, merely to coerce the tenant to enhance rent. In addition, the normal principle hence governing, the, availment, of, the afore statutory ground, as embodied, in, the landlord concerned, rather being, the solitary repository, of, his bonafide requirement, vis-a-vis, the apposite demised premises, rather getting both diluted, and, blunted. 9. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed, and, the impugned judgment rather not suffers, from, any gross mis-appreciation, of, evidence on record, hence, it stands affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.