OM PARKASH Vs. PARTAP SINGH KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord, who claims himself "specified landlord" preferred eviction petition under section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter for short "the Act") relating to Set No. 3, on the first floor of Ashiana building Tuti Kandi, Shimla. His claim is that he has been in service of Government of India Press at Tuti Kandi since 13 -7 -1951 and going to retire -from the post of a Reader in the Press at Shimla, on attaining the age of superannuation from 31 -10 -1990. In support of this fact, he has also filed a certificate duly signed by the competent authority. According to him, the respondent is the only tenant in the premises which are needed by him for his residence after his retirement. He has also stated that neither he nor his spouse own or possess any other suitable accommodation in their own right as owner or tenant in the urban area of Shimla and presently he, his wife and son are residing in one of the rooms of Dev Cottage No. 274 which is, in fact, held and possessed by his step -mother as a tenant in her own rights alongwith her son, sons wife, sons son and daughters. Quarrels between the family members are quite frequent and step -motherly treatment is being meted out to him and his family members. In addition to this problem, he also says that his wife has some mental problem, therefore, calm and co -ordial atmosphere for her living is necessary. His son is of marriageable age and has got to be married soon.

(2.) The tenant was issued summons through registered A. D as well as by ordinary process in accordance with Schedule -II of the Act. He received summons through Registered A. D on January 10, 1990, while those sent by ordinary process, were received on January 24, 1990 He filed an application and affidavit under section 16 (4) of the Act on March 8, 1990 seeking permission to contest the petition on the ground that the landlord is not the sole owner of the premises, in question According to the tenant, the landlord was one of the co -owners thereof. It is also his case that the landlord owns another building in the urban area of Shimla known as Zamindara House and as such co -owners had been letting out the sets in this building to different tenants during the past five years. Landlords status as "specified landlord" has also been challenged. The tenant has also claimed that the reason for late filing of the application for leave to contest, has been because of the winter vacations in the Court from January 21, 1990 and since the period of 15 days intruded into the Court vacations, it could not have been filed earlier. The landlord has reiterated his stand again in the reply to the tenants application, as taken in the eviction petition. He has also added that he is the absolute owner of the premises, in question, on account of family partition and the Zamindara House is exclusively owned by his step -mother and he has no share in this building.

(3.) The Rent Controller examined the question whether the landlord is a "specified landlord". It also examined the question of landlords relation with the property, in question, while examining the fact of late filing of the application and the affidavit for leave to contest by the tenant. After going into the matter quite seriously and exhaustively, the Rent Controller held that the landlord is a "Specified Landlord" and that the property > in question, is exclusively owned by him. He also concluded that even if the landlord is taken to be the co -owner thereof, he is entitled to maintain the petition.