JASJIT SINGH SODHI Vs. MAHARAJ KRISHAN MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner Shri Jasjit Singh Sodhi preferred a petition under Section 15 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be called as "the Act") for the eviction of the respondent from the premises consisting of two rooms, glazed verandah, kitchen, bathroom, and latrines, which is a part of building knows as Townsend, Jakhu, Shimla. The petitioner claimed himself to be a specified landlord and sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the following grounds: That the petitioner is the specified landlord within the meaning of the Act in respect of the premises i.e. a portion of the premises lower left Townsend Jakhu, Shimla and the respondent is a statutory tenant on payment of the monthly rent in respect of the same. The petitioner was working as a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force which is a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union of India. He retired from the said post on 21.1.1969. The required certificate of the authority competent to remove him from the service indicating the date of retirement is attached herewith. The petitioner or his wife/spouse do not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Shimla. He wants to reside at Shimla with his family. The other portion of the building Townsend, Shimla is in the use and occupation of the other co-owners Except Townsend, the petitioner has no other building in Shimla. The petitioner is entitled to the possession of the building in the occupation of the respondent for his personal use and occupation as also for the use and occupation of his family members. He wants to live at Shimla to lead a retired peaceful life. The petitioner is not occupying any other building at Shimla either as an owner or otherwise. The petitioner has also not vacated any other such building in the urban area of Shimla within the last five years of the filing of the present petition.

(2.) THE respondent Maharaj Krishan Mahajan contested the petition and took various legal objections regarding the maintainability of the petition. On merits, the case put up had been, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The other averments pertaining of the grounds of eviction, as referred to above, were not admitted.

(3.) ISSUE Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were decided in the affirmative, while issues 2, 5 and 6 in the negative. Learned Rent Controller dismis the petition.