JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J—The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 1-12-1994 passed by the Rent Controller, Kandaghat whereby his application for granting him leave to appear and contest the eviction petition has been refused to him and the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord, in his capacity as specified landlord, has been allowed and order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner-tenant 2. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record The respondent-landlord filed eviction petition under section 15 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act), against the petitioner-tenant on the allegations that he was serving as Store Keeper in Government Industrial Training Institute at Bassi Pathana, District Fategarh Sahib, Punjab and he was due to retire on 30-4-1995 and having fallen within the definition of specified landlord, he had a right to get the premises in question vacated from the petitioner tenant, as he did not have any other premises for his residence at Kandaghat, where he intended to settle after his retirement His petition was supported by his affidavit as well as certificate in respect of his retirement from service w e. f. 30 4 1995. The other relevant informations supplied under Item No, J9 of the petition are as under :— "The family of the petitioner consists of his wife, mother, two sons, one daughter in Jaw and a grand-son All these persons are living with the petitioner jointly and intend to settle down at Kandaghat alongwith the petitioner after his retirement That apart from the demised premises the petitioner also owns the following premises at Kandaghat :— (i) One house consisting of three rooms, a kitchen and a varandah presently occupied by Sh. Surjan Singh as tenant under the petitioner. (ii) Two shops out of which one is occupied by Sh Bhandari Sharma and another is occupied by Sh. Daulat Singh as tenants under the petitioner. (iii) One shop in the ground floor and three small rooms in the first floor situated on Court Road Kandaghat are occupied by Sh. Raman Pathak son of the petitioner where he and his family consisting of four members are already residing and running a petty shop of Radio Mechanic He is living independently from his father and earning his livelihood separately from the petitioner." 3. Raman Pathak son of the petitioner where he and his family consisting of four members are already residing and running a petty shop of Radio Mechanic He is living independently from his father and earning his livelihood separately from the petitioner." 3. On receipt of the petition, the petitioner-tenant was issued notice on 3-8-1994 whereby he was asked to appear before the Rent Controller within )5 days of the service thereof to obtain leave to contest the petition, on the expiry of which period, order of eviction would be passed. It was also stated in the said notice that, "Leave to appear and contest the application may be obtained on an application to the Controller supported by an affidavit as is referred to in sub-section (II) of section 15". The petitioner-tenant was directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 27-9-1994. 4. ft is not in dispute that the notice was served upon the wife of the petitioner-tenant on 31-8-1994 but he preferred his application for leave to appear and contest the eviction petition on 27-9-1994, inter alia, stating the circumstances under which he could not prefer his application within the period of Limitation of 15 days His application was also supported by his affidavit The respondent-landlord contested the application and refuted all the allegations made therein in his reply, which was also supported by his affidavit. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:— 1. Whether the respondent can be granted leave to contest the petition as prayed by him on the given facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Order. 6. Issue No 1 has been answered in negative and the application for leave to appear and contest the eviction petition has been rejected holding that there was no sufficient cause for the petitioner tenant to file his application seeking leave to appear after the period of limitation of 15 days It is also observed by the Rent Controller that there is no provision under the Act for condonation of delay for filing the application for leave to appear and contest the eviction petition and has rejected the application on this ground alone After rejecting the application the Rent Controller has allowed the eviction petition holding that the respondent-landlord is a specified landlord and he is entitled to possession of the premises in question after his vacation by the petitioner-tenant. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, has raised the following points to challenge the impugned order:— (i) The eviction petition of the respondent-landlord lacks necessary pleadings and affidavit, inasmuch as, neither there is averment nor affidavit that the spouse of respondent-landlord does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Kandaghat, where he intends to reside after retirement. (ii) The certificate of retirement is not in conformity with the law, inasmuch as, it does not mention whether the authority issuing it is the authority competent to remove the respondent-landlord from service. It is also pointed out that this deficiency has not even been supplemented by any other evidence on record. (iii) The summons issued to the petitioner-tenant are not in accordance with the prescribed proforma, which has misled the petitioner-tenant in filing his application for leave to appear and contest the eviction petition. (iv) The Rent Controller has proceeded to allow the eviction petition after dismissing the application for leave to appear and contest the eviction petition without satisfying himself that the respondent-landlord bonafide required the premises in question for his residential purpose. The precise submission of Mr. Kuldip Singh is that in the absence of proper pleadings, affidavit, certificate and proper service on the petitioner-tenant, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the respondent-landlord and allow it. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord have supported the impugned order. Ms. Devyani Kuthiala has pointed out that the pleadings are complete and proper affidavit has been filed by the respondent-landlord stating the premises owned and possessed by him and other members of his family. She has pointed out that had the spouse of the respondent-landlord owned or possessed any other premises, he would have stated in the eviction petition. Even the petitioner-tenant has not alleged that the spouse of the respondent-landlord owns or possesses any other premises. According to Ms Kuthiala, the certificate filed along-with the eviction petition is not in accordance with law, however, it has been supplemented by an Office Order which has been brought on record of this revision petition alongwith the reply to the application for stay, whereby the respondent-landlord had been relieved on his retirement on 30-4-1995. According to Ms Kuthiala, the certificate filed along-with the eviction petition is not in accordance with law, however, it has been supplemented by an Office Order which has been brought on record of this revision petition alongwith the reply to the application for stay, whereby the respondent-landlord had been relieved on his retirement on 30-4-1995. She has also referred to paras 6 and 9 of the impugned order to show that in fact the Rent Controller had considered that the requirements of the respondent-landlord are bona fide. The main contention raised by Ms. Kuthiala is that there is no provision in the Act to condone the delay in filing application for leave to appear and contest the eviction petition beyond the period of limitation of 15 days. She further submits that on the failure of the petitioner-tenant to move such an application within the period of 15 days, the Rent Controller was only to allow the eviction petition accepting the contentions raised therein, which were supported by his affidavit, which has in fact been done in the present case In the alternative her submission is that assuming the Rent Controller had the powers to condone the delay in the present case, no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner-tenant to file his application for leave to appear and contest the eviction petition beyond the period of limitation of 15 days. 9. The eviction petition of the respondent-specified landlord is under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act. It is :— "15. (1) . ........................ 9. The eviction petition of the respondent-specified landlord is under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act. It is :— "15. (1) . ........................ (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 grand-child or 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 t he residential building and may extend such time not exceeding three months in the aggregate. Explanation—For the purpose of this section, the expression "retirement" includes the voluntary retirement but does not include resignation, discharge or dismissal from service, (3) .. .................... ......” The procedure for disposal of application for, eviction under section 15 is provided under section 16 of the Act, the relevant sub-sections (4) and (5) of which are :— "16. (1)............... ............. (2)......... ........... -....... (3)............ ... ......... - (4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in Schedule II shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided ; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord or by the specified landlord, or as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. (5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord or be specified landlord or, as the case be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in sub clause (iii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 14 or in section 15, (6) ... The form specified in Schedule II is as under :— "SCHEDULE II (See Section 16) FORM OF SUMMONS IN A CASE WHERE RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PREMISES ISPRAYED FOR ON THE GROUND OF BON A FIDE REQUIREMENT UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (iii) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 14 OR SECTION 15. To (Name, description and place of residence of the tenant) Whereas Shri ..... ..... has filed an application (copy of which is annexed) for your eviction from..-........... (here insert the particulars of the premises) on the ground specified in sub clause (iii) of Clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 14 or in section 15. To (Name, description and place of residence of the tenant) Whereas Shri ..... ..... has filed an application (copy of which is annexed) for your eviction from..-........... (here insert the particulars of the premises) on the ground specified in sub clause (iii) of Clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 14 or in section 15. You are hereby summoned to appear before the Controller within fifteen days of the service hereof and to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction on the ground aforesaid ; in default whereof, the applicant will be entitled, at any time after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, to obtain an order for your eviction from the said premises. Leave to appear and contest the application may be obtained on an application to the Controller supported by an affidavit as is referred to in sub-section (5) of section 16. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day the ......... of ...........19 ." 10. The perusal of sub-section (4) of section 16 read with the form specified in Schedule II of the Act clearly shows that the tenant on whom the summons is duly served, should within 15 days of the service file affidavit stating grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtain leave from the Rent Controller, If he fails to put in appearance within fifteen days of his service, the statement made in the eviction petition by the specified landlord would be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and he would be entitled to an order for eviction, 11. Now, the question arises as to whether in the absence of any provision for extension of period of fifteen days, the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to condone the delay for putting in appearance by the tenant to seek leave to contest the eviction petition? Now, the question arises as to whether in the absence of any provision for extension of period of fifteen days, the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to condone the delay for putting in appearance by the tenant to seek leave to contest the eviction petition? For answering this question, the intention of the Legislature is to be seen, which is apparent from section 15 (2) of the Act whereby a right has been given to the specified landlord to recover possession of the premises from the tenant at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement if he intends to reside therein himself Looking to the urgency of the need of specified landlord, special procedure for disposal of his eviction petition has also been prescribed under section 16 of the Act whereby besides other things a fixed period of fifteen days of the date of service of summons has teen provided for putting in appearance before the Rent Controller, if he intends to seek leave to contest the claim of the specified landlord. This period of fifteen days has been specified in Schedule II, which prescribes the form in which summons is sent to the tenant requiring the tenant to appear before the Rent Controller within fifteen days of the service to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the eviction petition, in default whereof the landlord would be entitled at any time after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days to obtain an order of his eviction from the demised premises The language used in sub-section (?) of section 16 and Schedule II of the Act makes it clear that the period of fifteen days for putting in appearance by the tenant as specified in Schedule II is mandatory and the Rent Controller has no authority to extend it. Any other interpretation would defeat the purpose of making special provision for specified landlord to get immediate possession of the tenanted premises. Moreover, had it been the intention of the Legislature that the period of fifteen days may be extended by the Cent Controller, they would have made such a provision in the Act. 12. Any other interpretation would defeat the purpose of making special provision for specified landlord to get immediate possession of the tenanted premises. Moreover, had it been the intention of the Legislature that the period of fifteen days may be extended by the Cent Controller, they would have made such a provision in the Act. 12. In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of fifteen days for putting in appearance by the tenant to seek leave to defend the eviction petition of specified landlord For taking this view, this Court finds support from the earlier judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in K. S. Rawat v, H S. Bisht, 1990 (2) Sim LC 283 and of Delhi High Court in Smt Savitri Devi v Shri Nathu Ram, 1982 (2) Rent Control Reporter 95 and M/s, Flowmore Private Ltd v. Mr. Keshav Kumar Swamp, 1982 (2) Rent Control Reporter 520 The judgment cited by Mr, Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant in Tharia Ram v. Smt Chitra Devi and others, 19W (1) Rent Control Reporter 698, is on the facts of the case before the learned Judge of the Delhi High Court and has not been followed in the later judgments of the Delhi High Court Therefore, this Court holds that the Rent Controller is right in rejecting the application of the petitioner-tenant for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition as time-barred. 13. After dismissing the application for leave to contest the eviction petition as time-barred the Rene Controller had rightly passed tenant eviction order, as the statements made in the eviction petition were deemed to be admitted by the petitioner-tenant, as provided under sub-section (4) of section 16 of the Act. If no application for leave to contest the eviction petition is filed, it is obligatory for the Rent Controller to pass eviction order accepting the statements made by the specified landlord in the eviction petition. If no application for leave to contest the eviction petition is filed, it is obligatory for the Rent Controller to pass eviction order accepting the statements made by the specified landlord in the eviction petition. The only requirement is that the eviction petition should be accompanied by the requisite certificate and the affidavit to the effect that her or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside, (Please see: Shri Bachan Singh v. Shri Khem Chand, 1987 (I) Rent Control Reporter 556 and Smt. Bhuvneshwari Devi v. Col Kalyan Singh, 1993 (2) Rent Control Reporter 457). 14. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel has pointed out that the eviction petition as well as accompanying affidavit lack necessary particulars that the spouse of the respondent-landlord also does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area. Since the petitioner-tenant has failed to put in appearance within the prescribed period and otherwise also there are no allegations that the spouse of the respondent-landlord owns and possesses any other suitable accommodation in the local area, the objection raised by Mr. Kuldip Singh has no merit In view of these findings, this Court needs not consider the other above noted submissions made by Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant. 15. In the result, this Court does not find any merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed. No costs. Revision petition dismissed.