IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No. 61 of 2008. Reserved on :12.08.2011. Decided on: 09.09.2011. _____________________________________________________ Tulsi Ram Thakur. …Petitioner. -Versus- Naryan Singh Gazta. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent. : Mr. M.S. Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Inderjit Narwal, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 04.03.2008, rendered by the learned Appellate Authority in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 18-S/14 of 2007. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this revision petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the landlord” for convenience sake) instituted a petition under Sections 14 & 15 (2) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as “the tenant” for brevity sake), on the ground that he was a Government servant and stood retired from H. P. Government service on 31.10.1995 as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department. He intended to settle at Shimla for rest of his life alongwith his wife and son, namely Suresh. He has purchased suit premises comprising of two katcha rooms, one storeyed, known as part of Hawbuck Granage Estate, Khalini vide sale deed dated 29.04.1980. The tenant was occupying the premises 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. - 2 - at the monthly rent of `30/- per month. He has not paid the rent after September, 1995. The landlord is not even in a position to construct his own building over the aforesaid land without getting the possession of the aforesaid premises. He is a specified landlord and is entitled to recover the vacant possession of the premises in dispute within one year from the date of his retirement. He has not vacated any building within five years of the date of filing the present petition within the urban area at Shimla. The tenant is in arrears of rent with effect from 01.09.1995 till 01.01.1996. 3. The reply was filed by the tenant. He has contended that the landlord is not a specified landlord. According to him, the premises were owned by Raja Hitender Sain, who had accepted the rent from him till September, 1995. He denied that the landlord did not own and possess any other residential premises in the urban area of Shimla. It is also denied that the landlord and his family members intend to settle at Shimla. It is also denied that the landlord intends to get his children admitted in any school at Shimla. 4. The landlord filed the rejoinder and reiterated his stand in the petition. The issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 29.10.2005 and 18.01.2006. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant vide order dated 28.02.2007. He ordered the tenant to deliver the possession of the premises in dispute within one month from the passing of the order to the Landlord. 5. The tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla. Learned Appellate Authority, on the - 3 - basis of Section 16(8) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, came to the conclusion that the appeal was not maintainable against the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 28.02.2007. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the tenants. 6. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority was maintainable against the order dated 28.02.2007, passed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla. He then contended that the procedure prescribed under the Act has not been followed by the landlord. He further contended that his client was not tenant of the landlord. 7. Mr. M.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and record carefully. 9. The landlord has filed the petition under Sections 14 & 15(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity sake). According to the averments contained in the petition, the landlord was a Government servant and has retired from Government service on 31.10.1995 as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department. He intended to settle at Shimla for rest of his life alongwith his wife and son, namely Suresh. He has purchased suit premises comprising of two katcha rooms, one storeyed, known as part of Hawbuck Granage Estate, Khalini vide sale deed dated 29.04.1980. The premises in dispute were - 4 - katcha structures and were also in dilapidated condition. The following specific averments have been made by the landlord in paragraph No. 18(a) of the petition: “…That the petitioner has retired from the Govt. service on 31.10.1995 and as such falls under the definition of specified landlord as defined under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The petitioner is entitled to recover the vacant possession of the premises in dispute within one year from the date of his retirement as the premises in dispute are suitable to him and required for his own use and occupation. That the petitioner has not vacated any building within five years of the date of filing the present petition under H.P. Urban Area of Shimla town. The premises in question required bonafide by the petitioner for his own use and occupation…..” 10. The landlord has also filed necessary affidavit, as required under the law sworn on 14.01.1996. The landlord has deposed in the affidavit that he was a Government servant and has retired after attaining the age of superannuation. He has retired as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry on 31.10.1995. The tenant has filed reply to the petition on 17.12.1996. He has denied that the landlord was a specified landlord. 11. The tenant has moved an application under Section 16(4), (5) and Section 15(2) of the Act, seeking the leave of the Court to contest the application for eviction on 17.12.1996. He has also filed an affidavit with the application sworn on the same date, i.e. 17.12.1996. The landlord has filed a detailed reply to the application/affidavit on 15th June, 1997. The tenant has filed the rejoinder to the same on 5th August, 1997. The - 5 - application preferred under Sections 16 (4), (5) and Section 15(2) of the Act was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 19.10.2005 and the tenant was granted leave to contest the main application. 12. Mr. M.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of the Court to the notice served upon the tenant. This is at page No. 135 of the paper-book. The notice dated 19.11.1996 has been issued to the tenant under Section 16(2) of the Act. For completion of facts, it will also be apt at this stage to refer that the landlord has also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3), C.P.C. to place on record the notification of retirement. This application was contested and the same was allowed on 13.07.2005. 13. The landlord has complied with all the mandatory provisions of law as far as his application under Section 15(2) being a specified landlord is concerned. The expression “specified landlord” has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, which reads as under: “specified landlord” means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.” 14. The learned Rent Controller has also framed the additional issues. The landlord has appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that the disputed premises are situated at Khalini known as Hawbuck Granage Estate. He is owner of the building and also of the vacant land adjoining to the building. He has - 6 - purchased this building and land on 29.04.1980 from Raja Hitender Sain vide sale deed Ex. PW-4/A. The copy of Jamabandi is Ex. PW-1/A. The disputed premises comprised of one katcha dhara. He has brought the factum of the purchase of property and land to the tenant. He has retired from Government service on 31.10.1995. He has also proved rough sketch Ex. PW-1/B. He needs the premises for his own occupation and except this, he is not having any building with M.C. limit. His son lives at village. He wants to keep his grand children at Shimla for study purpose. His wife remains sick and he wants to shift her to Shimla for treatment at I.G.M.C., Shimla. PW-2 G.S. Kaushal has proved the copy of notification Ex. PW-2/A. PW-3 Dhani Ram has deposed about the existing condition of the building. PW-4 Pawan Sharma has proved the sale deed Ex. PW-4/A, dated 29.04.1980. 15. Tenant has appeared as RW-1. According to him, he was tenant of Raja Hitender Sain for the last 38 years. He was paying rent @`25/- per month, but now the rent is `30/- per month. According to him, the building was in good condition. He has admitted that the landlord has approached him to vacate the premises, but he has not recognized him. He has also admitted that he was occupying the premises in the shape of a dhara. He has also admitted that he has not paid the rent for the last 10 years. 16. The landlord has also proved on record the copy of Jamabandi Ex. PW-1/A. According to the contents of Jamabandi, the landlord is recorded as owner in possession of ‘gain mumkin single storeyed katcha house and vacant land’. - 7 - According to sale deed Ex. PW-4/A, the landlord has purchased the property from Raja Hitender Sain. 17. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the landlord is a specified landlord. He was a Government servant. He has retired as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry after attaining the age of superannuation. The copy of notice is Ex. PW-2/A. He has purchased the land from Raja Hitender Sain vide sale deed Ex. PW-4/A. The property is in the shape of a dhara. The landlord does not own any premises except the present premises within the area of Municipal Corporation. According to him, he has filed the petition within one year of his retirement. In Jamabandi, his name has been recorded as owner. He has proved all the ingredients of Section 15(2) of the Act. He has filed a detailed affidavit, to which the reply was filed by the tenant. The tenant has also been served with a notice under Section 16(2) of the Act. He has filed an application under Section 16(4), (5) and Section 15(2) of the Act, seeking the leave of the Court to contest the application for eviction on 17.12.1996. This application was contested and leave was granted on 19.10.2005. The landlord has also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3), C.P.C. to place on record the notification of retirement. This application was contested and the same was also allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 13.07.2005, as noticed hereinabove. What can be gathered from the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties is that primarily the landlord has sought the eviction of the tenant being a specified landlord. The learned first Appellate Authority has also come to the same conclusion. There is no merit in the - 8 - contention of Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord is not a specified landlord, since the tenant was not paying any rent to him. Suffice it to say that the landlord has stepped into the shoes of Raja Hitender Sain after he purchased the premises from him vide sale deed Ex. PW- 4/A. Landlord has been recorded as owner in the Jamabandi Ex. PW-1/A. Thus, he was entitled to get the rent from the tenant after he purchased the property on 29.04.1980. The tenant has also admitted that he has not paid the rent for more than 10 years. The learned Rent Controller has also ordered the eviction of the tenant by treating the landlord as specified landlord. Since the eviction of the tenant has been ordered under Section 15(2) of the Act, no appeal or second appeal lies against the order of learned Rent Controller as per Section 16(8) of the Act. The learned Appellate Authority has come to the right conclusion that only revision lies against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, when the eviction of the tenant is ordered at the behest of specified landlord. 18. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 09, 2011. (bhupender) - 9 - - 10 - `