JUDGMENT 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. 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 requisite certificate of retirement from Government service is not there Reference to subsection (2) of section 15 of the Rent Control Act was made and it was contended that the certificate should have been obtained from the authority which is competent to remove the landlord from service and in this case the competent authority is the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. This argument has also no substance. This argument has also no substance. The object of obtaining of such a certificate is two-fold; (i) that the applicant is a "specified landlord"; and (ii) that he has retired from the Government service on a date which is relevant for the purpose of moving an eviction application. The object of obtaining the certificate from the authority which is competent to remove the applicant, is only to ensure truthfulness of the certificate, and in case the Rent Controller is satisfied on the material before him, or the parties have no objection as to the factum of the applicants being a specified landlord and that he has retired from a Government service on the relevant date, the obtaining of this certificate from the authority concerned need not be strictly insisted upon. 8. In the present case, the landlord retired from Government service on 31-3-1985. This is clear from Governments order (Ext PW-l/A) issued by Under-Secretary (S. A.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, proved by Het Ram Bhardwaj, Senior Assistant in H. P. Secretariat (PW 1). No evidence against the contents of this document has been led by the tenant in this case. Therefore, it is to be taken as settled that the landlord is a "specified landlord" and he has retired from the Government service 31-3-1985 and the Rent Controllers decision on this aspect is absolutely correct. In 1990 (j) RCJ 27 2, Surjit Singh and another v. Beam Singh and others, no certificate from the competent authority was produced, although under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 this was a requirement While rejecting this argument, Gokal Chand Mittal, J. said in para 3 of the judgment that: “3. Another point made out was that the certificate from the proper competent authority was not produced along with the ejectment application. Since Dr. Beant Singh has retired more than two years and nine months ago, that matter loses its significance because it is not disputed that he has retired on 31-12-986. The certificate is required only to see whether the averment made in the petition that the petitioner is going to retire within a year of the filing of the petition or not, is supported by any material." 9. Insufficiency of accommodation with the landlord has been examined by the Rent Controller quite seriously and comprehensively. The certificate is required only to see whether the averment made in the petition that the petitioner is going to retire within a year of the filing of the petition or not, is supported by any material." 9. Insufficiency of accommodation with the landlord has been examined by the Rent Controller quite seriously and comprehensively. In order to examine the findings of the Feet Controller on this aspect, the evidence available on the record of this case has been carefully scrutinised. It is a three storeyed building, initially owned by Wadhwa Mull and on his death in 1944, the landlord, his mother, sister and three brothers, namely, Nitya Nand, Roshan Lal and Vidya Sagar inherited it (Ext. PW 6/A). This version of the landlord is also supported by his brother Vidya Sagar (PW 3). The property is still joint, therefore, the landlord is one of the co-owners of the property The objection of Shri Bhupender Gupta is that Shri Vidya Sagar is the landlord, has, therefore, no substance Similarly, the objection that the landlord could not file the present application since the premises are jointly owned by many, has also no force It is well-settled that one of the co-owners can also seek eviction of the tenant (See: 1990 (3) RCJ 124, J.C. Saraswati v P. N. Bhatt and others). Further, there is also evidence in this case which points out that not only Vidya Sagar, but also the landlord had been receiving rent from the premises. 10. The landlord states that although there is another building at Kaithu, jointly owned by them, yet there is no set available for his occupation and the set with the tenant is suitable for his occupation for the reason that the tenant is occupying the ground floor while he is on the first floor of the same building On the top floor of the same building Jia Lal and Roop Chand are the tenants and some portion of the same is with his brother Nitya Nand. At present the landlord has three rooms, kitchen and a bath room (Ext PW 6/C). This extent of accommodation has been supported by other witnesses also. The landlords claim is that he requires the accommodation for the occupation of his family consisting of himself, mother, two sons, their wives and five grand-children. At present the landlord has three rooms, kitchen and a bath room (Ext PW 6/C). This extent of accommodation has been supported by other witnesses also. The landlords claim is that he requires the accommodation for the occupation of his family consisting of himself, mother, two sons, their wives and five grand-children. One of his sons has settled in America He admits that one of the two sons, namely, Ram Gopal has been transferred to Solan, but says that his wife and children are still staying at Shimla. This statement appears to be correct in view of the evidence that one of the sons of Ram Gopal is studying in Chepslie—a local public school. 11. The landlord has also proved satisfactorily that he had been pursuing Homoeopathic practice in the past and intends to practice it in future. He is registered with Council of Homoeopathic System for Medicines (Ext. PW 2/A). In support of this claim, statement of Dr. G. K. Kohli, Registrar, Council of H. P Homoeopathic (PW 2) has been produced. Obviously, in order to do Homoeopathic practice, the landlord would require more accommodation. 12. According to document (Ext PW 6/B), the tenant has three rooms, one kitchen, one latrine, one bath room. Verandah and terrace in his occupation This kind of accommodation is in n y considered opinion, quite suitable to landlords requirement to accommodate all the members of his family and do Homoeopathic practice The requirement of the landlord is quite bona fide, reasonable and justifiable. Therefore, 1 entirely agree with the findings of the Rent Controller on all the different facets of this case and confirm them. 13. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to the landlord (Trilok Chand) within a period of one month from today. There is, however, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.