DALIP SINGH Vs. LT.COL. M.K. CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the order dated November 28, 1988, of Rent Controller (1) Shimla. The petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in his occupation on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and also on the ground that the landlord, an army officer, was serving under special conditions and required the premises, for the occupation of his family members. The arrears of rent are stated to have been paid within the stipulated period, therefore, the only ground that survives for determination relates to issues No. 1, 3 and 5 as framed by the trial court and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also concentrates his assault around these issues.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the respondent presented a petition under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on the ground that he is serving in the Army under special conditions and, therefore, required the premises for the occupation of his family members after re-construction/renovation and also that the petitioner was in arrears of rent. The petitioner contested the petition and asserted that the respondents got into the ownership of the premises collusively with the intention to succeed in getting the premises vacated from the petitioner and the transfer in favour of the respondent was not, therefore, bonafide. It was also disputed that the respondent was serving under such conditions which entitled him to get the benefit of these special provisions under Section 14(3)(iii) of the Act. Regarding the point of arrears of rent, it is contended that the rent of the premises is Rs. 20/- per month inclusive of all taxes which the petitioner was ready to pay. An objection as to the maintainability of this petition has also been taken but was not pressed before the Rent Controller. The proceedings ultimately resulted in the aforesaid order of eviction of the petitioner.

(3.) IT is further submitted that the premises against which eviction is sought have not been clearly identified. It is asserted that there is vagueness on this aspect of the matter. There is no pleading on this aspect nor could there be any as there is no dispute on this aspect of the case. The respondent is clear, and so also the court which has passed the impugned order. The relevant documents produced on this aspect by the respondent make things absolutely clear and beyond the pale of controversy. The only doubt entertained by the petitioner appears to as to the owner/landlord of the property and his assertion is that the property had been in the ownership of Kanwar Madan Singh and he was ready to pay the rent whosoever happens to be the owner of the same.