SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. MOHAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has been preferred against the order of Rent Controller (3), Shimla, dated 10 -4 -1990, whereby the petition moved by the respondent under section 15 (2) of Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter shortly Rent Control Act, 1987) has been allowed with direction to the tenant to put the respondent in possession of the property in three months time.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent filed this petition under section 15 (2) of the Rent Control Act, 1987 on 1 -12 -1989 on the ground that he is a specified landlord, therefore, entitled to the immediate possession of the premises in dispute by eviction of the tenant from the premises. According to him, the disputed premises consisting of two rooms, kitchen, store, latrine, bathroom and a glazed Verandah in the ground floor of Gulshan Lodge, Lakkar Bazar, Simla was purchased by him from its previous owner through registered sale -deed dated October 19, 1989. He was serving as Section Officer (E & T) in the H. P. Secretariat, Simla, a post in connection with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The tenant was occupying the premises at a rental of Rs. 800 per annum and the premises were purchased for his own use and occupation and his family consists of his wife, married son, daughter -in -law and a grand -daughter. Retirement has been stated to be on May 31, 1990 and thereafter the land lord intends to reside in Simla, where he or his wife has no other accommodation. After the retirement, he has to leave the Government accommodation at Nabha and the State Government has already informed the Estate Officer about the date of retirement of the petitioner.

(3.) As required under the Act, notice was served on the tenant who moved application with affidavit dated 19 -12 -1989 for the grant of leave to defend the petition. Her case is that initially her late husband Paras Ram was the tenant in the premises consisting of four rooms, one glazed Verandah, two kitchens, two bath rooms and a flush latrine at a rent of Rs. 400 which was enhanced to Rs. 600 and then to Rs. 810 per annum including taxes. She also asserts that she is a patient of spine tuberculosis and is of seventy years of age. In the premises in dispute, in addition to her, her sons, namely, Ajay, Gopal and Krishan Chand were residing since the life time of her husband and about two -three years prior to the death of her husband, her son Kushal Chand was also residing with them in this accommodation. Krishan Chand has been residing in the same accommodation alongwith his wife and two children separately during the last about 20 -22 years in respect of accommodation consisting of two rooms, one kitchen and one bath, but was availing the facility of latrine jointly with her and the remaining accommodation of two rooms, glazed Verandah, one kitchen and one bath room has been in her occupation alongwith her two sons Ajay and Gopal with their respective wives and children. Her husband died about eleven years back and during his life time, all his children were dependent upon him for accommodation and on his death, all of them succeeded him so far as tenancy rights are concerned. Therefore, in the absence of necessary parties, the petition is not maintainable.