This case arises from an eviction order granted under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The appellants, Kailash Chand and Nokha Ram (landlords), sought the eviction of the ... respondent, Dharam Dass (tenant), on the ground of personal necessity. While the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority upheld the eviction, the High Court reversed the decision, relying on the third proviso to Section 14(3) and the precedent set in Molar Mal v. Kay Iron Works. The landlords appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's application of the third proviso.