SHAM LAL Vs. COL.SOM DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is the tenant while the respondent \s the landlord of the tenanted premises comprising of a residential Set No. 104 on the ground floor of the building known as Kanwar Niwas, at Chhota Shimla. The parties are being referred to as the tenant and landlord, respectively, hereinafter.

(2.) The landlord claiming himself to be a "specified landlord" filed a petition claiming ejectment of the tenant from the tenanted premises under Section 15(2), H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Act). In seeking the ejectment of the tenant, the landlord has averred in para 18(a) of the petition as under: - "That the premises, in the tenancy of the respondent (Tenant), is bona fide required by the petitioner, for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his family members which consists of his wife, two major sons (one of whom is doing law, in Shimla) and his aged Mother (who is dependent on him, for the purpose of residence etc.). That the petitioner is the Specified Landlord, as defined in Section 2(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. He is at present staying and occupying the Government allotted accommodation, in Knollswood Lodge (Upper Floor), Chhota Shimla. He is posted as Colonel in the Army, stationed at Shimla and is retiring from the Army, on 15.5.1998 and has to vacate the said allotted accommodation, on his retirement. He purchased the premises in question, from its previous owner Dr. Roshan Lai Kanwar, on 21st August, 1997, vide Sale Deed, duly registered, in the office of Sub Registrar, Shimla and became entitled to receive rent from 21st August, 1997. He has to vacate the Government allotted accommodation, on his retirement, on 15.5.1998 as such, his need and requirement to occupy the premises in question (in the tenancy of the respondent), is bona fide, as he wants to settle in Shimla, after his retirement. That he is filing the requisite certificate of his retirement, from the Army and also the requisite affidavit, to the effect that he or his spouse (wife), does not own and possess, any other suitable accommodation, within the urban area of Shimla, as he wants to reside in Shimla, after his retirement."

(3.) On the notice having been served upon the tenant, he approached the learned Rent Controller under Section 16(4) of the Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the landlord was not a "specified landlord", no certificate as required under Section 15(2) of the Act had been filed; the eviction petition was mala fide and filed at the instance of Roshan Lai Kan war, the previous owner of the building; the transaction of sale between the earlier owner and the landlord was a sham transaction and that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide.