The judgment establishes the criteria for a specified landlord under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act and clarifies the appealability of eviction orders under the Act.

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 3 1.10.1995 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 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 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 3 1.10.1995 as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department. He intended to settle at Shimla for rest of his life alongwith his wife an