H N BHASIN Vs. CHAMBA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein is the owner of a building known as''Narain Bhawan" in Simla and the petitioner herein as a tenant of a portion of the said building. The respondent filEd a petition before the Rent Controller. Simla for the eviction of the tenant under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, III of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the averments made in the said petition the landlord was in occupation of one main room, one room under the attic plus Kitchen, cum-bath and a very small coal godown and that this accommodation was too inadequate for the requirments of his family which consisted of himself, his wife, one son studying in the Higher Secondary Class one daughter studying . in the First Primary Class and another daughter who was married recently but who has to stay with him for some more time. The respondent had requested the petitioner to vacate the premises in hkis occupation but the latter had declined to do so. In his reply the petitioner herein alleged that in addition to the accommodation mention by the respondent he was also in occupation of four rooms along with his father and that the application was mala fide and filed with a view to force the petitioner to pay enhanced rent The learned Rent Controller framed the following issuei:-

(2.) The respondent examined himself as AW-1. in addition to saying that the present accommodation was insufficient for his purpose he also stated that he was not in occupation of any other accommodation in Simla and also that he had never parted with possession of any residential accommodation within the mimic pal limit of Simla. The petitioner herein examined himself as RW-2 and also another witness RW-1. In his evidence the petitioner reiterated that the respondent was in occupation of four more rooms along with his father.IJJTIS RW-1 also stated like wise.

(3.) On a consideration of this evidence the learned Rent Controller held on issue No. 1 that the respondent herein had sufficient accommodation for his requirements. He also held on issue No. 2 there was no valid notice under section 16 of the Transfer of Property Act. He, therefore, dismissed the petition filed by the respondent.