ANIL BANSAL Vs. DINESH KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 16.3.2010 passed by Learned Rent Controller, Solan, District Solan in a petition filed under Section 15 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' in short) registered as Rent Petition No. 5/2 of 2005 is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the landlord. He was employed as Ortho Specialist in Zonal Hospital, Solan. On account of adverse family circumstances as well as to look after his old mother he had decided to seek voluntary retirement and to run Multi Speciality Hospital with super speciality in Orthopedic. Since neither he nor his wife and children were owner in possession of any other suitable accommodation except the demised premises within the municipal area Solan, he being a co-sharer and in possession of the demised premises i.e. ground floor of the building known as "Dev Building" situated near District Employment Exchange building, Ward No. 11, Solan, which was rented out to the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant', asked him to vacate the same being required by the petitioner-landlord for his personal bonafide requirement. The respondent-tenant continued seeking extension of time from the petitioner-landlord from time to time with the assurance that he will vacate the demised premises, but of no avail. In the meanwhile, the petitioner after seeking pre-mature retirement stood retired from government job on and w.e.f. 8.3.2004. The demised premises was rented out to the respondent. The rent initially was being received by the mother of the petitioner on his behalf through cheque in view of he being in government job at that time, however, was being deposited in account joint with his mother. On finding that the respondent was not willing to vacate the premises, a petition under Section 15 of the Act came to be filed before learned Rent Controller, Solan, District Solan.

(3.) The respondent-tenant on entering appearance and seeking permission to contest the petition filed for his eviction has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant inter-se them as according to him it is Smt. Nirmala Bansal PW5, the mother of the petitioner, who inducted him as tenant in the demised premises. It is she who had been receiving rent from him. Apart from this, the question of maintainability of the petition was also raised as according to him the demised premises being commercial/nonresidential in nature is not covered under Section 15(2) of the Act.