Where a landlord does not require the whole or any part of any premises for a particular period, and the landlord, after obtaining the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner, lets the whole of the premises or part thereof as residence for such period as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant does not, on the expiry of the said period, vacate such premises, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 or in another law, the Controller may, on any application made to him in this behalf the landlord within such time as may be prescribed, place the landlord in vacant possession of the premises or part thereof by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation of such premises.
Section 17: Recovery of possession in case of tenancies for limited period
The Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987
How current this text is
Text as published by the Law Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, with amendments up to H.P. Act No. 8 of 2012.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Chaman Lal Bali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 2072 of 1995, decided on 2 August 2016, reported as AIR 2016 HP 168) is reported to have declared section 4 unconstitutional, together with sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30(2) in so far as they depend on standard rent fixed under section 4. The official text still prints these provisions. We could not open the judgment on an official court site and found no order of the Supreme Court staying or reversing it.
H.P. Ordinance No. 4 of 2022, promulgated on 12 October 2022, amended section 14. No Act replacing it has been found, and an Ordinance that is not replaced by an Act ceases to operate, so this text does not show it.