Deepak Gupta, J. - The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant as specified landlord under Section 15(2) of the HP. Urban Rent Control Act. The relevant portion of the Section reads as follows:- "15(2) Where a specified landlord, at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the appointed day whichever is later, applies to the Controller, alongwith a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of one residential building, for his own occupation, there shall, accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, withstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or usage to the contrary a right to recover immediate possession of such residential building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts."

2. The Rent Controller accepted the petition of the landlord and ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant and hence the present revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 16(8) of the Act which reads as follows:- "16(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. Provided that the High Court may, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such orders in respect thereto as it thinks fit."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord retired as General Manager of the H.P. State Wool Procurement and Marketing Federation on 31.7.1993. On 29.7.1994, i.e. within one year of his retirement he filed a petition claiming eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that he needed the said premises for setting up his own practice as a Veterinary doctor and to establish a Veterinary Clinic and Hospital in the said building. The landlord stated that he was in occupation of four rooms in the top storey, but his accommodation was not suitable for running a clinic and according to the landlord in the entire building owned by him the only premises which were suitable for running a Veterinary Clinic were the premises in the occupation of the tenant since there was sufficient open space/court-yard appurtenant to it. The landlord also filed an affidavit stating that he or his wife did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the municipal area of Shimla town in which he intends to start his Veterinary Clinic/Hospital. The tenant sought leave of the court to contest the petition on various grounds. The tenant was permitted to contest the petition and thereafter the parties led evidence. The learned Rent controller allowed the petition and order evidence of the tenant. Hence the present petition.

4. The undisputed facts are that the building in question is a three storyed building. The top floor abuts the road and is occupied by the landlord and his family and it consists of four rooms, two bath rooms, kitchen, store and an open terrace. Below this floor is the middle floor which consists of similar accommodation rented out as one room and two room sets. The ground floor consists of four rooms, bath-room, kitchen etc. A two room set alongwith kitchen and bath-room is in the occupation of the tenant and there is similar accommodation on the other side of the building. Initially this similar accommodation was rented out as two separate one room sets. The admitted position is that during the pendency of this petition the tw