P.K.PALLI, J. - (1.)The petitioner who .is -the tenant under respondent/ landlord, has laid challenge to the order passed by the learned Real Controller ordering his ejectment from the premises in question which order, on his appeal, stands affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The parties, hereinafter in the judgment, shall be referred to as landlord and tenant.
(2.)The ejectment of the tenant was sought by the landlord under the provisions of section 14 (3) (d) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 which reads as under : ¢14. (1) (2) (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession - (a) (b) (c) (d) in the case of any residential building, if he requires it for use as an office, or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a lawyer, an architect, a dentist, an engineer, a veterinary surgeon or a medical practitioner, including a practitioner of Ayurvedic, Unani or Homoeopathic System of Medicine or for the residence of his son who is married, if - (i) his son as aforesaid is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office, consulting room or residence, as the case may be ; and (ii) his son as aforesaid has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause, after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned."
(3.)It was pleaded in para 18 (a) of the ejectment petition that the landlord is at present residing in a tenanted premises at Butail Ganj, Shimla whereas his elder son is residing in Mehlog House, Boileauganj who is married and his family consists of himself, his wife, daughter aged about 19 years, elder son aged about 17 years, second son aged about 15 years (all the three children studying at the relevant time). It was also stated that the relations of the son of the landlord also visit and the premises in his occupation consists of two residential rooms besides a drawing room, a dining room bath room and toilet. The requirement of the said son is five residential rooms apart from drawing and dining rooms. The accommodation with him was stated to be insufficient and the landlord desired to provide additional accommodation to that son and the premises for which the ejectment was being sought, i.e., the one in possession of the tenant, adjoins the accommodation already in occupation of the said son. It was also pleaded that the married son of the landlord R. K Aggarwal has no property of his own within the urban area of Shimla nor he occupies any other accommodation except the one stated in the petition nor he has vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The children of the said son were growing up and needed separate accommodation for their living and study. The premises in question were thus, sought to be vacated for providing additional accommodation to the married son.