The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide and liberal interpretation of 'for his own use' in determining the landlord's bonafide requirement for seeking eviction under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Controller Act.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant civil revision, stands directed, by the landlord against the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both, the learned Courts below, where throughs, his petition for eviction of the respondents herein, from, the demised premises, hence, stood, dismissed.

2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a landlord and the respondents herein are tenant qua the premises i.e. One garage (room) in front portion of basement of Sidhowal Lodge, The Ridge, Shimla. The tenancy is residential. Respondent No.1 mostly resides out of Shimla at her native place in Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, where she has got huge agricultural land. Similarly, respondent No.2 has acquired a spacious residential set at Sanjauli, where he is residing along with his family and with his brother Raj Kumar, respondent No.3. Respondents No. 4 and 5 happily married and are living with their in-laws. The rent of the demised premises is Rs.30/- per month. Late Mathu Ram is the original tenant in the one room in the garage portion in the basement floor of building known as Sidhowal Lodge, and, after his death, the respondents have become the tenant of the premises in question. However, no rent note has been executed. The eviction is sought on the following grounds:-

(I) That the premises in question in occupation of the respondents are bonafide required by the petitioner for using the same, as the residence of his servant/driver etc., as no separate servant quarters, which may be used for the said purposes, are available with the petitioner, where he can accommodate his entire staff, i.e. servant and drivers etc. It is pertinent to mention here that the premises in question are situated just below the personal residence of the petitioner, from where he can easily contact his servants/drivers in the event of necessity, hence, the premises in question is mot and suitable accommodation to the petitioner for using the same as residences for his servants, drivers and cooks etc.

(II) That the petitioner is not in occupation of any other residential accommodation in the Urban area of Shimla, which can be used by him for the purposes of residences of his servants, drivers and cooks and the present accommodation is suitable accommodation. The respondents are thus liable to be evicted from the premises in questions.

3. The petition was contested by the respondents/tenants by filing reply, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua cause of action, and the petition is hit by the principle of resjudicata. On merits, averments made in paragraphs No.1 to 4 of the petition are admitted. It is denied that the respondent own residential set or plot at Sanjauli. It is submitted in reply to para 18(a) that it is absolutely wrong and false, and, hence the entire averments made in this para are vehemently and categorically denied. It is specifically denied that the premises in dispute is required bonafide by the petitioner for the residence of servants/drivers. The servants/drivers are residing in the room adjoining to the disputed premises. The petitioner has converted the residential set for guest house/Hotel purpose, which set/premises were earlier in his possession, and, so he himself has created the need, if there is any, which however the respondent do not admit. There is no personal residence of the petitioner and this personal residence has been converted by him into commercial as stated above. The petition has been filed to harass, torture and humiliate the respondents and to fetch much exorbitant rent from them and in the alternative to compel them to vacate the premises so that it is also converted into commercial one.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:-

1. Whether the premises in question are bonafidely required by the petitioner, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present pe