B.N.GUPTA Vs. GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner -landlord has come up in revision under section 16(8) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order passed by the Rent Controller (4), Shimla on 14th August, 1992 dismissing his petition seeking eviction of tenant -respondent under subsection (2) of section 15 of the Act.

(2.) On 21st August, 1990, a petition under sub -section (2) of section 15 was filed by the petitioner seeking tenants eviction from the upper flat No 27/1, Boileauganj, Shimla, comprising three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine and a glazed verandah. It was alleged that the petitioner was due to retire from the post of State Vocational Guidance Officer in the Labour and Employment Directorate of the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 31st July, 1991. The petitioner being a specified landlord within the meaning of word as defined in section 2 (i) of the Act, was entitled to seek respondents eviction since the premises in question are the only suitable accommodation available to him for his residence after retirement. It was alleged that the petitioner was already in occupation of one room, kitchen, verandah, bath and latrine in the ground floor of the building in question. In addition to it, there was one shop attached to the set occupied by him. where his wife Pritama Gupta was running a type -writing training centre. His family consists of himself, his wife and one son, who was also posted as Refractionist in the Rural Health Centre at Arki and was staying with him. The two married daughters keep on visiting him alongwith other family members. As such, the accommodation with him was wholly inadequate. The son of the petitioner is of marriageable age. The petitioner and his wife were not owning and possessing any other suitable accommodation within Shimla, where he wanted to reside and start his business after retirement. It was alleged that the petitioner had not taken or come in possession of any other accommodation within the last five years of the filing of this petition.

(3.) On putting an appearance, the respondent sought leave of the Court to contest the eviction petition by filing an application supported with his affidavit. The requisite leave to contest was granted to the respondent by the Rent Controller on 24th October, 1990. Number of grounds were taken by the respondent in reply, filed in answer to the eviction petition. It was alleged that the petitioner had in the recent past got spacious residential sets vacated on the ground of his personal bona fide use and occupation, which fact had been suppressed in the eviction petition. The petitioner came in possession of a vacant spacious set in the ground floor of the building, initial rent whereof was Rs. 13 per month. The same had been thereafter let out to one Shri P. N. Kambhoj on a rental of Rs. 500 per month. Another set got vacated by him for his personal bona -fide use and occupation was earlier let out on Rs. 17 per month, but now another tenant had been inducted from whom the petitioner was realising Rs. 600 per month as rent. It was alleged that the accommodation in petitioners occupation was more than sufficient and he was not in need of any additional accommodation. He had been occupying and residing in the ground floor since December, 1977 alongwith his three children and mother. Children were brought up, educated in the same set and now two daughters have been married. The size of family had reduced. The married daughters are residing outside Shimla. Even the mother of the petitioner is not residing with him. The respondent alleged that the accommodation in the ground floor was almost identical with the accommodation in his possession, as such, seeking his eviction under summary jurisdiction was highly mala -fide on the part of the petitioner, who had a commercial bent of mind. The respondent initially had been paying Rs. 27.50 per month as rent, which was enhanced by the petitioner to Rs. 60 and presently the respondent was paying a sum of Rs. 88 per month as rent. The intention of the petitioner was to coerce the respondent and pay an exorbitant rent at the rate of Rs. 500 per month.