JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidya, J.—The present petitioner Shri Jasjit Singh Sodhi preferred a petition under section 15 of the H P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be called as "the Act) for the eviction of the respondent from the premises consisting of two rooms, glazed verandah, kitchen, bath and latrine, which is a part of building known as Townsend, Jakhu, Shimla The petitioner claimed himself to be a specified landlord and sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the following grounds : "That the petitioner is the specified landlord within the meaning of the Act in respect of the premises i.e. a portion of the premises lower flat Townsend Jakhu, Shimla and the respondent is a statutory tenant on payment of the monthly rent in respect of the same. The petitioner was working as a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force which is a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union of India. He retired from the said post on 21-1-1969. The required certificate of the authority competent to remove him from the service indicating the date of retirement is attached herewith. The petitioner or his wife/spouse do not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Shimla He wants to reside at Shimla with his family The other portion of the building Townsend, Shimla is in the use and occupation of the other co-owners Except Townsend, the petitioner has no other building in Shimla. The petitioner is entitled to the possession of the building in the occupation of the respondent for his personal use and occupation as also for the use and occupation of his family members Hr wants to live at Shimla to lead a retired peaceful life The petitioner is not occupying any other building at Shimla either as an owner or otherwise. The petitioner has also not. vacated any other such building in the urban area of Shimla within the last five years of the filing of the present petition.” 2. The respondent Maharaj Krishan Mahajan contested the petition and took various legal objections regarding the maintainability of the petition. On merit, the case put up had been, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The other averments pertaining to the grounds of eviction, as referred to above, were not admitted. 3. The respondent Maharaj Krishan Mahajan contested the petition and took various legal objections regarding the maintainability of the petition. On merit, the case put up had been, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The other averments pertaining to the grounds of eviction, as referred to above, were not admitted. 3. The Rent Controller put the parties on trial on the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is the specified landlord within the meaning of H P. Urban Rent Control Act in respect of the premises in question? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the premises are bona fide required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petition is neither maintainable nor competent? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action to file this petition? OPR 5. Whether the petition lacks material particulars? If so, its effect? OPR 6. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPR 7. Relief. Issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were decided in the affirmative while issues 2, 5 and 6 in the negative, Learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The aforesaid order has been assailed in the present revision petition on various grounds. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have minutely scrutinised the entire record 4. The petitioner preferred the petition under section 15 of the Act, which offers a right to the specified landlord to recover immediate possession of the premises occupied by the tenant. Specified landlord has been defined under section 2 (i) of the Act, which 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 5. In the present case, the aforesaid status of the petitioner was disputed but, however, in the present proceedings, the findings of the learned Rent Controller in this regard under Issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner, have not been seriously contested. 6. It has come in evidence that the petitioner was owning 1/4th share in the entire building known as Townsend, Jakhu and the demised premises happened to be a part of this building. 6. It has come in evidence that the petitioner was owning 1/4th share in the entire building known as Townsend, Jakhu and the demised premises happened to be a part of this building. There is no doubt that the rent note brought on record on behalf of the tenaat Ex. RW-l/A was executed by the tenant in favour of Sardar Kartar Singh Sodhi landlord, but this Kartar Singh Sodhi alongwith one Jagtar Singh were the two owners of this building. It has come in evidence that Jagtar Singh and Kartar Singh are since dead, and the share of Kartar. Singh was inherited by S/Sh Paramjit Singh and Shyainjit Singh The share of Jagtar Singh was inherited by the present petitioner Jasjit Singh Sodhi and Shyamjit Singh. This fact is otherwise proved by Ex RW 1/B and Ex PX, the certified copy of the assessment list maintained by the Shimla Municipal Corporation and a certified copy of the mutation of inheritance. 7. Otherwise also, there is practically no dispute raised in the present proceedings that the present petitioner was having l/4th share in the entire building including the demised premises. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has very strongly contended that on the basis of the evidence examined before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner has been successful in proving his case under section 15 of the Act and in this view of the matter, the Rent Controller acted illegally in dis-allowing the petition, 9. Mr. Matewal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to find support in favour of the petition from (1994) 5 SCC 372, Anand Swaroop Vohra v. Bhim Sen Bahri and another. This reported case is under the Delhi Rent Control Act v. In this case, the appellant and his brother were the owners of a two storeyed house and the entire ground floor had been let out in favour of respondent No, 1 and appellants brother was a Central Government employee and on his retirement from service, he had shifted to the first floor of the house in 1982 and the appellant, who also was a Central Government employee, after his retirement in 1987, also shifted to the first floor of the house. Thereafter, in 1989, he filed an application under section 25-B (I) read with section 14-C (I) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground that the accommodation available to him and his family members on the first floor was not sufficient The tenant contended that in any case, the sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation could not be gone into in an application under section 14-C. It was urged that once it was established that the appellant had in his possession a dwelling unit, he could not invoke the special provisions of section H-C of the Act and that if he felt that the accommodation was insufficient, he could only take resort to the provisions of section 14 (l): (e). In this case, it was held that an employee of the Central Government or Delhi Administration, who is a retired or is due to retire can exercise his right to recover immediate possession of his tenanted premises within the time prescribed under section 14-C, if he requires the same for his own residence, but if he has more than one such premises, his requirement must be limited to one of his choice, ft was also held that it was not the case of the tenant that except the premises let out to him, the appellant has other tenanted premises., It was, therefore, observed that as the appellants application fulfilled all the requirements of section 14-C, it could not, therefore, be rejected as not maintainable 10. Section 14-C of the Delhi Act runs as under: "14-C (1) Where the -landlord is a retired employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration, and the premises let out by him are required for his own residence, such employee may, within one year from the date of his retirement or within a period of one .year from the date of commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, whichever is later, apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises. (2) Where the landlord is an employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration and has a period of less than one year preceding the date of his retirement and the premises let out by him are required by him for his own residence after his retirement, he may, at any time within a period of one year before the date of his retirement, apply to the Collector for recovering the immediate possession of such premises, (3) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub-section in respect of only one of the premises chosen by him." Mr Matewal, in the background of the aforesaid precedent, has submitted that in the present case, the evidence examined during the trial established that the petitioner was not occupying any part of the premises and therefore, he was entitled for the occupation of the demised premises. It has further hem submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even if for arguments sake, it is conceded that the petitioner alongwith co-owners was in occupation of remaining portion, on the strength of Anand Swaroop Vohra’s case (supra), his petition has to be favourably considered. It is net so simple a matter, as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner. 11. In order to appreciate the said submission, the provisions under the Act and the evidence examined, have to be appreciated and taken note of. 12 Section 15 (2) of the Act, which is relevant in order to appreciate the controversy under reference, runs as under: “15(1) ................. 11. In order to appreciate the said submission, the provisions under the Act and the evidence examined, have to be appreciated and taken note of. 12 Section 15 (2) of the Act, which is relevant in order to appreciate the controversy under reference, runs as under: “15(1) ................. 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, 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 possession of such residential building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts ……………” 13. There is some distinction between section 14 Col the Delhi Act and section 15 (2) of the Act Under the Delhi Act, it has been very clearly mentioned that a particular landlord, who, in the pres at Act: has been defined as specified landlord, can get the eviction of his tenant within the stipulated time if the landlord required the premises let out by him for his own residence after his retirement. The words own residence are self explanatory, but oh the other hand, under section 15 (2) of the Act the specified landlord has to prove that he did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation’. The words suitable-accommodation have not been defined under the Act. The words own residence are self explanatory, but oh the other hand, under section 15 (2) of the Act the specified landlord has to prove that he did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation’. The words suitable-accommodation have not been defined under the Act. This distinction between the two provisions is writ large These words suitable accommodation have been appreciated in 1994 (2) Sim LC 142 B.N. Gupta v. Ganga Ram, wherein if Ken held that in a ease where the landlord is already in occupation of a residential building either owned by him or by his spouse within the local area" he cannot, in view of the second proviso of section 15, be said to have acquired any right to seek tenants eviction and on that ground the eviction petition will not be maintainable. It has been observed in this very case that second proviso of section 15 has to be read in such a manner so as to harmonise the provisions contained in sub-section (2), which say that shall not be construed as conferring a right so any person to recover pos session of more than one residential building and in case a landlord happens to be in occupation of a residential building within the local area concerned, owned and possessed by him or his spouse, ft cannot be construed that under section 15 (2), a right has been conferred on him to seek tenant s eviction from one more additional residential set in the garb of fulfilling his intention that he intends to reside therein. In this reported case, the landlord admittedly was in occupation of some residential area in the same building. 14. In the present case, it is now to be seen on merit as to whether the petitioner was occupying some other premises in the urban area or not The case of the petitioner, as pleaded has been that he was not occupying any premises in the urban area, more-so in the building of which demised premises formed a part. According to petitioner, the other co owners were occupying the same. This aspect of the case has to be factually ascertain-ed at first instance. 15. According to petitioner, the other co owners were occupying the same. This aspect of the case has to be factually ascertain-ed at first instance. 15. It may be pointed out here that the petitioner who has to establish his case in order to bring the same within the provisions of section 15 (2) of the Act, has also to legally establish at first instance, the entire accommodation in the building in which he claims himself to be haying l/4th share. It is really sorry to note that in this behalf, only oral evidence has been tried to be examined and no plan of the entire building has been brought on record. The petitioner and his witness, who happens to be one of the co-owners of the building, has fried to support the case of the petitioner by deposing that petitioner was not occupying any portion of this building but, on the other hand, the tenants witnesses which included his statement also, have deposed on oath that the building is having two storeys and each storey was having four sets each. It has also come in their statements that ail the sets in the upper storey were vacant and one set in the ground floor was with the tenant which was the demised premises and the remaining sets were vacant. 16. During the pendency of the present petition, the tenant, through C M. P 5 58/1995, prayed to bring on record certain additional facts which were in the shape of some record pertaining to the building under reference, maintained by Shimla Municipal Corporation which has been filed as Annexures A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-3 with the petition While the present revision petition was being argued, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-was asked as to whether the petitioner, was contesting the aforesaid CMP. 158/1995 so that this hunter could be decided at first instance, but the learned Counsel represented that let these documents be ordered to be placed on record and appreciated as evidence in the present proceedings, The petition for bringing on record the additional facts, as such stood accepted. 17. Annexure A-1 is dated .19-11-1989, pertaining to the building Townsend and the name of the owner has been recorded as Sardar Kartar Singh Sodhi. 17. Annexure A-1 is dated .19-11-1989, pertaining to the building Townsend and the name of the owner has been recorded as Sardar Kartar Singh Sodhi. In this, the entire upper floor and a part of lower floor has been recorded to be in occupation of the owner while a part of the lower floor has been recorded to he in occupation of the present respondent Mr. Mahajan Annexure A 2 pertains to the year which is not clearly mentioned, probably it could be 1990, and here, the entire upper floor is recorded to be in occupation with owner Sardar Kartar Singh Sodhi and half of the ground floor is recorded to be in occupation with the owner and the other half with Mr. M K Mahajan, the respondent. 18. Annexure A-3 is pertaining to 1st of May 1991, wherein the owners recorded are S/Sh Tika Jagtar Singh, Paramjit Singh and Saravjit Singh Sodhi Tika Jagtar Singh was the father of the present petitioner and in this document, in the upper storey, the owners have been recorded to be in occupation and half of the lower storey has been recorded in the occupation of the owners while the other half in occupation of Mr. Mahajan, the respondent Similar is the entry in Annexure A-4 which is pertaining to 18-6-1992. 19 Needless to say, in the proceedings of present nature, the tenant, of course, is entitled to raise ail contentions and submissions as against the claim of the specified landlord. It may not be disputed that under section 5 (2) or under section 14 of the Act, the requirement of the landlord must be genuine and a bnnafide one -which implies his honest intention Whether the landlord, at the relevant time was possessing any suitable accommodation, has to be ascertained from the pleadings, evidence and the conduct of the landlord, 20 In the present case, as per the record of the corporation, the landlord alongwith other co owners has been recorded to be in occupation of j the remaining portion of the building except the demised premises. The landlord has not brought on record through documentary evidence in order to establish he entire accommodation available in the building. He has failed to examine the independent witnesses to establish this aspect of the matter also. 21. The landlord has not brought on record through documentary evidence in order to establish he entire accommodation available in the building. He has failed to examine the independent witnesses to establish this aspect of the matter also. 21. It has been contended on behalf of the tenant that in case the landlord intended to shift his residence from Chandigarh to Shimla, he could have taken necessary steps after his retirement in this regard, but it has not been so done, which indicated that he had no intention of occupying the demised premises after his retirement, which is now being made a ground in the present proceedings for the eviction of the tenant. There is no doubt that the petitioner retired many years back, but the fact remains that the ground was made available in the year 1987 and he could avail that ground only in case established in accordance with law. 22. In this case it was mandatory upon the petitioner to legally establish that he did not own or possess any other suitable accommodation. The additional facts brought on record clearly established that owners were in occupation of entire upper storey and a part of lower storey. The owners included father of the petitioner from whom he inherited his share in the building. There is nothing on record to rebut these additional facts especially when these facts were appreciated when learned Counsel for petitioner during the course of arguments agreed for such appreciation without reserving his right for rebuttal. In the aforesaid background, it was imperative upon the petitioner to have established as to what was the entire accommodation available in the building and who were the persons occupying the same The conduct of the petitioner in not satisfying the legal requirement is clearly indicated, which aspect reflected the absence of honest intention on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly it will not be in the interest of justice to consider favourably the claim of the petitioner who has not approached the forum with clean and honest intention. 23. No other point has been stressed. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present petition and dismiss the same, with costs. Petition dismissed. -