NIRANJAN DASS Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed an application under Section 15 (2 of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for eviction of the appellant. It is averred by the landlord that he retired from Government service in 1985 and, therefore, is entitled to seek eviction. He was residing on the first floor since 1952 whilethe ground floor was in possession of the appellant. It was urged on behalf of the landlord that he wanted to start a Homoeopathic practice. The portion in his occupation and enjoyment was not sufficient. Therefore eviction was prayed for.

(2.) The appellant contested the application. The trial court allowed the' application for eviction wholly on the ground that the landlord was a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 15. The High court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant herein. Hence, this Civil.

(3.) Two questions of law are argued before us by the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant. (1 The definition of a landlord clearly postulates that specified landlord is a person who receives the rent on his own account. In this case admittedly the property after the death of the predecessor-in-title has devolved on five co-owners. Therefore, there is no question of specified landlord (in this case, the respondent) being entitled to receive the rent on his own account. (2 Then again Section 15 (2 will not apply to the facts of this case. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that both the courts below have held against, the appellant is entitled to succeed on this legal interpretation.