SUBHASH GUPTA Vs. N.K.BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) against the order of Rent Controller, Shimla in case No. 26/11 of 1995, dated 29 -11 -1995 whereby ejectment has been ordered. Respondent N. K. Bansal (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed a petition for ejectment of tenant under section 15 (2) of the HL P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The landlord claimed himself to be a specified landlord within the meaning of section 2 (i)of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act hereinafter referred to as the Act on the plea that he will be retiring from the service of Himachal Pradesh Government on 31 -7 -1995 when he attains the age of superannuation. According to the landlord, he is Class I officer in the Himachal Pradesh Government Forest Department and at the time of presentation of the petition, was posted at Kunihar Since the landlord intends to settle permanently at Shimla, he claimed possession of the premises in question. It was further pleaded by the landlord that either he or his wife do not have any other building within the urban area of Shimla nor any other member of his family possesses or occupies any other suitable accommodation within the urban area of Shimla except the premises in question which are in occupation of the tenant. It was also the case of the landlord that he alongwith proforma respondents (who are his brothers, mother being co -owners alongwith him) had filed eviction petition against the respondents on the ground of personal bona fide requirements, however, the same is being delayed by the tenant and thus during the pendency of the said petition, the proceedings under section 15 (2) of the Act were filed subject to the said proceedings It was also the case of the landlord that he and proforma respondents had mutually partitioned the building in question and the portion of the building which is in occupation of the tenant consists of three bed rooms, one dining -cum -drawing room, one kitchen, one covered lobby, two toilets -cum -bath, gallery on both sides, which are under the tenancy of the respondent in the ground floor of the premises, has come to the share of the landlord. Further according to the landlord one of his brothers proforma respondent No. 2 Dr S K. Bansal. who is employed as Professor of -Medicine in Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla was managing the property on behalf of the landlord as well as other co -owners It may again be clarified here that all the other co -owners have been arrayed as proforma respondents in the ejectment proceedings though not arrayed as such in the revision petition by the tenant for reasons best known to him. This petition was accompanied by an affidavit of the landlord to the effect that he is going to retire on 31 -7 -1995 as Divisional Forest Officer from the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh and he shall settle in Shimla.

(2.) After receipt of summons, the tenant sought leave of the Rent Controller to contest the ejectment petition, which leave was allowed and thereafter, he filed his reply to the ejectment petition and repudiated the claims of the landlord. While resisting the ejectment petition, tenant pleaded that he was inducted as a tenant by respondent No. 2 (Dr. S. K. Bansal) and it was he who was receiving the rent from the tenant and it was always given to understand to the tenant that he is the exclusive owner of the demised premises. Theory of landlord being a specified landlord is not tenable for want of ownership of the demised premises.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller below framed following issues :