BANSI LAL GANPAT RAI Vs. BHOJ RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 18th September, 1978, passed by the Rent Controller (III), Simla, by which the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil P. C. filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondents filed an application for eviction of the tenant-petitioner under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the tenant from the upper and top floors of premises No. 20, and whole of premises No. 21. It was alleged in the eviction petition that both the premises Nos. 20 and 21 are residential as per definition of the residential building given in Section 2 (g) of the Act. Under para 9 of the eviction petition it is averred that the premises are occupied by a single tenant. Under para 14 it is alleged that premises, No. 20, were let out some 30 to 35 years back and in premises No. 21, the tenant was in occupation since 1966 when the landlords purchased the same. In para 18, the grounds for eviction of the tenant were that the premises are required by the landlords for their own occupation and for the occupation of the members of the family of Bhoj Raj and that the tenant has also defaulted in the payment of rent. In para 19, it was alleged that the premises though numbered separately are part and parcel of one single building and that the first and the second floors of both the premises are interconnected.

(3.) This application for eviction was contested by the tenant-petitioner and it was claimed that the two premises are distinct and separate and that a consolidated petition is not maintainable. It was also alleged that the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties, the premises are not residential and that the petition has been filed on mala fide grounds. The plan filed with the eviction petition was not admitted to be correct and the locus standi of the landlords to file the petition was also challenged. It was also alleged that a proper and valid notice had not been served and that the firm of the landlords is not registered. The other contentions raised by the landlords were also denied.