The certificate of retirement from the competent authority under section 15 (2) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987 is not strictly necessary if the Rent Controller is satisfied with the evidence before him or the parties have no objection as to the factum of the applicant being a specified landlord and that he has retired from Government service on the relevant date.

Bhawani Singh, J.—This is tenants petition under proviso to subsection (8) of section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987 (hereinafter shortly Rent Control Act), against the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller (IV), Shimla in Eviction Case No. 29/2 of 1988, dated 20-3-1990, ordering the eviction of tenant under section 15 (2) of the Rent Control Act from the premises in dispute.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the landlord (Trilok Chand) sought eviction of the tenant (Niranjan Dass) through application under section 15 (2) of the Rent Control Act relating to three rooms, one kitchen, one latrine, one bath room. Verandah and terrace, which were in the occupation of the tenants right from the year 1954. Landlords case is that he retired from Government service on 31-3-1985 and the present accommodation in his occupation, on the first floor in this building, for a family consisting of many members-himself, mother, two married sons, their wives, five grand children-is insufficient. He also says that he intends to start Homoeopathic practice in the premises. The landlord has also filed an affidavit.

3. The tenant sought permission to contest the application which was allowed by the Rent Controller. In opposition to the pleas taken by the landlord, the tenant has contested the status of the landlord for these premises and has said that Vidya Sagar Sood is actually the landlord. It has also been said that the requisite certificate has not been filed by the landlord showing that he has retired from the Government service, Similarly, it has been disputed that the landlord is a registered Homoeopathic Doctor or intends to start the practice in the premises in dispute. Insufficiency of accommodation and number of family members stated by the landlord have also been denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed :—

1. Whether the petitioner is retired from the Government service on dated 31-3-1985 and the present petition for bonafide required under section 15 (2) of the Act is maintainable ? OPP.

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged ? OPR,

3. Relief.

4. After allowing the parties to adduce their respective evidence, the Rent Controller held both the issues in favour of the landlord and ordered the eviction of the tenant, hence this revision by the tenant.

5. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the tenant, assails the decision of the Rent Controller and submits that in view of the legal position as well as the evidence on record, the impugned order of eviction is liable to be set-aside. The first contention raised was that the affidavit at page 45 of the Rent Controllers file, does not say that it is in support of the eviction application and that the affidavit does not mention about the landlords claim for accommodation for Homoeopathic practice.

6. Perusal of tenants reply discloses that no such objection has any where been taken therein. Similarly, the impugned judgment also discloses that no such submission was ever taken before the Rent Controller. In such a situation, the tenant cannot be permitted to raise this kind of objection in this Court. Alternatively, this objection is otherwise of no substance. The affidavit cannot be read in isolation. It has been filed with the eviction application, therefore, is in support of the same Further, paras 1 to 3 of this affidavit demonstrate that the landlord had retired from Government service on 31-3-1985 and the copy of the order has been filed with the petition and that the residential house as described in the petition, is not sufficient for use and occupation by him and his family members. Use and occupation would include use for practising in Homoeopathy. Then, he also says that he or any of his family members do not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in Shimla. There is a clear reference to the petition and the requirement of the landlord.

7. The second grievance of the tenant is that the requ