P.C.SHARMA Vs. RAMESHWAR NATH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Shri Rameshwar nath Sood, is the owner (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) of the tenanted premises (specifically detailed in the petition) which were let out to the petitioner, Shri P.C. Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) on a monthly rental of Rs.400/ -. The landlord sought ejectment of the tenant under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Control Act, 1987 (for short: the Rent Act) from the tenanted premises on the following grounds: - (a) Non -payment of rent; and (b) the tenant has been allotted a residence by the State Government reasonably sufficient for his requirements.

(2.) The tenant, while resisting the petition raised an objection as to the petition being bad for non -joinder of necessary parties, it was pleaded that the tenacy was jointly created in his favour and in favour of his wife Smt. Saroj Sharma. Therefore, the said smt. Saroj Sharma was a necessary party. Arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord were denied. It was averred that rent till September 1989 stood paid. With regard to allotmet of residential accommodation by the State Government, it was averred in para 13 of the reply dated 6.11.1989, as under: "Para 18(a)(ii), as alleged, is not admitted to be correct and the same is denied, it is specifically denied that the Respondent has been allotted type -VI Government accommodation in the Forest Colony at Khalini. However, there was an allotment of govt. accommodation to the Respondent which was conditional allotment and on seeking the clarification it was made clear by the allotting authority that the allotment is purely temporary and conditional and the house which was allotted to the Respondent was earmarked house meant to be occupied by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and it was required to be vacated as and when required by the principal C.C.F. It was not a suitable accommodation and when the Respondent sought clarification it was cancelled. The respondent never acquired possession of the said accommodation nor was possession of the same ever delivered to the Respondent. Otherwise also, under the law, the allotment of accommodation should be permanent in nature and it should be suitable. A conditional allotment of any accommodation will not amount to allotment merely allotment of any house particularly earmarked house will not give a ground of eviction to the petitioner. As has been submitted above Respondent is not required to hand over the possession of the premises as he has not occupied Type -VI accommodation, as alleged. It is specifically denied that after the commencement of this Act Respondent has been allotted any suitable accommodation by the Government. The alleged allotment order has been subsequently superseded and cancelled by the order of the competent authority rest of para is denied."

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla on 9.4.1990: