JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This revision petition, under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has been preferred against the order of Rent Controller (3), Shimla, dated 10-4-1990, whereby the petition moved by the respondent under section 15 (2) of Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter shortly Rent Control Act, 1987) has been allowed with direction to the tenant to put the respondent in possession of the property in three months time. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent filed this petition under section 15 (2) of the Rent Control Act, 1987 on 1-12-1989 on the ground that he is a specified landlord, therefore, entitled to the immediate possession of the premises in dispute by eviction of the tenant from the premises. According to him, the disputed premises consisting of two rooms, kitchen, store, latrine, bathroom and a glazed Verandah in the ground floor of Gulshan Lodge, Lakkar Bazar, Simla was purchased by him from its previous owner through registered sale-deed dated October 19, 1989. He was serving as Section Officer (E & T) in the H. P. Secretariat, Simla, a post in connection with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The tenant was occupying the premises at a rental of Rs. 800 per annum and the premises were purchased for his own use and occupation and his family consists of his wife, married son, daughter-in-law and a grand-daughter. Retirement has been stated to be on May 31, 1990 and thereafter the land lord intends to reside in Simla, where he or his wife has no other accommodation. After the retirement, he has to leave the Government accommodation at Nabha and the State Government has already informed the Estate Officer about the date of retirement of the petitioner. 3. As required under the Act, notice was served on the tenant who moved application with affidavit dated 19-12-1989 for the grant of leave to defend the petition. Her case is that initially her late husband Paras Ram was the tenant in the premises consisting of four rooms, one glazed Verandah, two kitchens, two bath rooms and a flush latrine at a rent of Rs. 400 which was enhanced to Rs. 600 and then to Rs. 810 per annum including taxes. She also asserts that she is a patient of spine tuberculosis and is of seventy years of age. 400 which was enhanced to Rs. 600 and then to Rs. 810 per annum including taxes. She also asserts that she is a patient of spine tuberculosis and is of seventy years of age. In the premises in dispute, in addition to her, her sons, namely, Ajay, Gopal and Krishan Chand were residing since the life time of her husband and about two-three years prior to the death of her husband, her son Kushal Chand was also residing with them in this accommodation. Krishan Chand has been residing in the same accommodation alongwith his wife and two children separately during the last about 20-22 years in respect of accommodation consisting of two rooms, one kitchen and one bath, but was availing the facility of latrine jointly with her and the remaining accommodation of two rooms, glazed Verandah, one kitchen and one bath room has been in her occupation alongwith her two sons Ajay and Gopal with their respective wives and children. Her husband died about eleven years back and during his life time, all his children were dependent upon him for accommodation and on his death, all of them succeeded him so far as tenancy rights are concerned. Therefore, in the absence of necessary parties, the petition is not maintainable. 4. It is also the case of the tenant that the previous owner wanted to enhance the rent and when be failed to succeed in his efforts, he parted with the premises by way of the present sale which is mala fide and fraudulent. The previous owner had numerous buildings within Simla Town and during the past five years, number of new tenants were inducted and so far as the present premises are concerned, Rs. 40,000 were spent on repairs during 1971 rains and Rs. 10,000 in the years 1985. There is also the allegation that the son of the landlord was having accommodation in Simla, since he was withdrawing House Rent Allowance from the H. P. State Electricity Board where he is Junior Engineer and the landlord has sufficient property at Rampur Bushehar where he would settle permanently after retirement and the present property was purchased to benefit his brother-in-law Shri D. D. Gupta, who cant claim the benefit of a specified landlord. 5. 5. The case set up by the tenant has been repudiated by the landlord and it has been stated that the total accommodation consists of two rooms, kitchen, store, latrine, bath and glazed Verandah and cot what the tenant has stated. It is also denied that the premises are intended to benefit the brother-in-law, since the petitioner would permanently settle at Rampur Bushehar. The contention that the sale transaction is void, illegal and fraudulent, has also been denied. It has been asserted that the tenant was the only tenant in the premises accepted as such after the death of the previous landlord as well as after the purchase of the new premises. Rent receipts have also been produced in order to prove this fact. In this way, it has been asserted that the sons of the previous tenant are not necessary parties to this case. It is also said that the son of the landlord is in occupation of only one room, although, the accommodation with him is no basis to reject the claim being made by the landlord and the property at Rampur Bushehar is joint and no accommodation is available there. It is also stated that by this purchase Shri D. D. Gupta is not intended to be benefitted. Again, the tenant has filed rejoinder to the reply of the landlord and the assertions made by the landlord have been casually repudiated. To this, the landlord has filed rejoinder which has been followed by the rejoinder of the tenant dated 2-3-1990. Then, supplementary affidavit asserting that the certificates relating to the retirement of the petitioner are not proper, to which reply has been filed by the landlord. Thus, asserting that the orders touching his retirement have been passed by the Government and they are absolutely in order. These are the essential facts which have been placed by the parties before the Court. 6. Section 2 (i) defines the specified landlord as under:— "2. (i) "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." 7. The landlord was a Section Officer in H. P. Secretariat and retired on 31-5-1990. The landlord was a Section Officer in H. P. Secretariat and retired on 31-5-1990. In view of the Government order, placed on the file of this case, showing his retirement from 31-5-1990, it cannot be disputed that he is not a specified landlord as defined above. Equally untenable is this plea that the same has not been issued by the appropriate authority, since it has been issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of H. P. in the name of the Governor Before the issuance of this notification, order of 27-9-1989 has also been issued, which is duly authenticated by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 8. Further, the contention of the tenant is that leave to defend has to be given in view of the averments contained in the reply-affidavits. Reliance was also placed on (1990-2) 98 PLR 140, Mr. Ravinder Nath Khanna v. Sh. T. R. Lakhanpal, Deputy Secretary (Budget), Government of Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, Simla and another and AIR 1982 SC 1518, Precision Steel and Engineering Works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, to support the aforesaid submissions. 9 On the other hand, Shri G. C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the landlord, sought assistance from (1979) I RCJ (SC) 316, B M. Mutto and another v. Dr. T. K. Nandi and 1988 SLJ 543, Kapil Dev Gupta v. Ram Krishan. 10. It appears from the case file that the Rent Controller permitted the tenant to file affidavit after affidavit, although, as per the statutory provisions, the tenant was entitled to file only one affidavit thereby pleading the grounds in opposition of the eviction application and seeking leave to defend the same. However, all the pleas raised by the tenant, were rejected by the Rent Controller before ordering eviction of the tenant. 11. Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, 1987 is as under :— "15. However, all the pleas raised by the tenant, were rejected by the Rent Controller before ordering eviction of the tenant. 11. Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, 1987 is as under :— "15. (I) Where a person who being in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government, the State Government or any local authority is required by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by the Central or State Government or local authority, as the case may be, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he or his spouse or dependent child own, within the urban area, residential accommodation there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order, to such a person notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediate the possession of any premises let out by him : Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring a right the person, who himself or whose spouse or dependent child owns, within the urban area, two or more dwelling houses, to recover the possession of more than one dwelling house, and it shall be lawful for such person to indicate the dwelling house, the possession of which he intends to recover. (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 or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside or to start his own business, 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, notwithstanding 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 : Provided that in,case of death of the specified landlord, the widow or widower of such specified landlord and in the case of death of such widow or widower, mother or father or a child or a grandchild or a widowed daughter-in-law who was dependent upon such specified landlord at the time of his death shall be entitled to make an application under this section to the Controller,— (a) in the case of death of such specified landlord before the appointed day, within one year of the said day ; (b) in the case of death of such specified landlord after the appointed day, but before the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of his death ; (c) in the case of death of such specified landlord after the appointed day and the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of such retirement; and on the date of such application the right to recover the possession of the residential building which belongs to such specified landlord or his spouse at the time of his death shall accrue to the applicant: Provided further that nothing in this section shall be so construed as conferring a right, on any person to recover possession of more than one residential building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts : Provided further that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the specified landlord or as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law in possession of the residential building and may extend such time not exceeding three months, in the aggregate. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "retirement" includes the voluntary retirement but does not include resignation, discharge or dismissal from service. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage to the contrary where the landlord exercises the right of recovery conferred on him by this Act, no compensation shall be payable by him to the tenant or any person claiming through or under Mm and no claim for such compensation shall be entertained by any court, tribunal or other authority: Provided that where the landlord had received,— (a) any rent in advance from the tenant, he shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of recovery of the possession of premises by him, refund to the tenant such amount as represents the rent payable for the ua-expired portion of the contract, agreement or lease ; (b) any other payment, he shall, within the period aforesaid, refund to the tenant a sum which shall bear the same pro portion to the total amount so received, as the un-expired portion of the contract or agreement, or lease bears to the total period of contract of agreement of lease : Provided further that, if any default is made in making any refund as aforesaid, the landlord shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of nine percent per annum." 12 This provision has been enacted for the benefit of landlord of specified categories mentioned in this provision. It is a special provision and deals with the adjudication of such kind of cases in order to enable the specified landlord to recover immediate possession of the premises let out by him, provided, the conditions prescribed in this section are fulfilled. The landlord has to file the petition 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. He has also to file a certificate alongwith the application from the authority competent to remove him from the service indicating the date of his retirement and also an affidavit to the effect that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside or to start his own business. If these conditions are there, a right to recover immediate possession of residential building or any part or parts of such building, if it is let out in part or parts, notwithstanding 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), customs or usages to the contrary, is there for the specified landlord, 13. Section 16 prescribes special procedure for disposal of the applications moved under section 15 and it appears from the various clauses thereof that the legislature intended quick and special procedure for the benefit of the specified landlords seeking immediate possession of the premises they may have let out. There is no provision for appeal and second appeal and only remedy by way of revision is available, Even where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller has to commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable and while holding an enquiry in such a proceeding, he has to follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence. In the light of the object of these provisions, it can be said that the tenant may be allowed to contest the application, provided the grounds are such which disentitle the petitioner from seeking the eviction. 14. In my opinion, the grounds raised by the tenant in this case are not such which, on proof, can go to the extent of entailing the dismissal of the eviction application against her. The sale in favour of the landlord is quite unassailable and the grounds set up by the tenant for assailing ; the same are thoroughly vague, general end without any sound footing The landlord has specifically said that he purchased the premises by obtaining loans to fettle himself in Simla after retirement, so, it is hardly possible to conclude that the sale transaction is fraudulent and is intended to benefit Shri D. D. Gupta a relation of the landlord. Further, the nature of the accommodation is specific and the landlord cannot be asked to put up with his son who may be in possession of some accommodation. The right of the landlord, under the Act, is quite independent and he can seek eviction of the tenant for the purpose of his residence, 15. Further, the nature of the accommodation is specific and the landlord cannot be asked to put up with his son who may be in possession of some accommodation. The right of the landlord, under the Act, is quite independent and he can seek eviction of the tenant for the purpose of his residence, 15. The plea that the previous landlord had sufficient properties in Simla, is not relevant so far as the case of the present landlord is concerned. Equally untenable is the plea that after the death of the previous tenant, the tenant and other sons of the deceased Paras Ram became tenants in the premises for the reason that the tenant came to occupy the premises in her own capacity and on fresh terms. Her sons have nothing to do with it and they are not necessary parties. The claim regarding certain spendings on repairs of the premises, appears to be an afterthought. No such claim was ever made by the tenant from the previous landlord. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the present landlord. 16. The Rent Controller has examined the matter quite seriously and elaborately. His view of the matter is quite correct and there is no reason to disturb the same. No other point was argued. All the submissions raised by the tenant do not make out a case for allowing her to defend the application for eviction. 17. The result of the aforesaid examination is that there is no merit in this revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. The tenant will hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute on or before 21-10-1990 to the landlord. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision dismissed.