NIRANJAN DASS Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants petition under proviso to subsection (8) of section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987 (hereinafter shortly Rent Control Act), against the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller (IV), Shimla in Eviction Case No. 29/2 of 1988, dated 20 -3 -1990, ordering the eviction of tenant under section 15 (2) of the Rent Control Act from the premises in dispute.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the landlord (Trilok Chand) sought eviction of the tenant (Niranjan Dass) through application under section 15 (2) of the Rent Control Act relating to three rooms, one kitchen, one latrine, one bath room. Verandah and terrace, which were in the occupation of the tenants right from the year 1954. Landlords case is that he retired from Government service on 31 -3 -1985 and the present accommodation in his occupation, on the first floor in this building, for a family consisting of many members -himself, mother, two married sons, their wives, five grand children -is insufficient. He also says that he intends to start Homoeopathic practice in the premises. The landlord has also filed an affidavit.

(3.) The tenant sought permission to contest the application which was allowed by the Rent Controller. In opposition to the pleas taken by the landlord, the tenant has contested the status of the landlord for these premises and has said that Vidya Sagar Sood is actually the landlord. It has also been said that the requisite certificate has not been filed by the landlord showing that he has retired from the Government service, Similarly, it has been disputed that the landlord is a registered Homoeopathic Doctor or intends to start the practice in the premises in dispute. Insufficiency of accommodation and number of family members stated by the landlord have also been denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed : - Whether the petitioner is retired from the Government service on dated 31 -3 -1985 and the present petition for bonafide required under section 15 (2) of the Act is maintainable ? OPP. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged ? OPR, Relief.