Whenever any building which was constructed before the commencement of this Act, and was being let out to tenants remains vacant for a period of twelve months, the Controller may on receipt of any application from a person serve the landlord a notice informing him that he should show cause why the vacant building be not let out to a tenant, who will pay fair rent to the landlord. On hearing the landlord, the Controller may, on such terms on which the building was being let out, lease the same to a person who has in his occupation no other building either as an owner or as a tenant.
Section 19: Leases of vacant buildings
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.