J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE tenant -Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 17th February, 1975, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of ejectment was pasted by the Rent Controller against him was maintained.
(2.) THE Respondent landlord sought ejectment of the Petitioner on various grounds, but in this petition we are only concerned with the bona fide requirement of the premises of his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller and as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently by found that there Is bona fide need of the landlord and he requires the premises for lis own use and occupation In the application for ejectment, it was pleaded that "the applicant bona fide requires the demised premises for his own occupation He has no residential house in the urban area of Amritsar City. At present he is residing in Khaira, a border town from where he wants to shift to Amritsar for security measures and for the education of his children "In reply to this para, the tenant -Petitioner in the written statement has stated that "It is wrong and denied The applicant does not require the premises for his own occupation He has no business or other connections at Amritsar It is incorrect that he wants to shift to Amritsar for security measures and education of his children There is a High School at Khaira.... The learned Counsel for the tenant Petitioner has vehen ently contended that the application for ejectment is liable to be dismissed on the ground that necessary ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a)(1) of the the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act have not been pleaded by the landlord. According to the learned Counsel, in any case, the third ingredient that the landlord has not vacated such a building without any sufficient came after the commencement of the said act in the said urban area, has not been specifically pleaded. In support of his contention, he cited latest Supreme Court authority in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas,, 1979 (2) R.L P. 226 and the Full. Bench authority of this Court in Ponke(sic) Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 (I) R.C.J. 332. The learned Counsel also referred to Durga Prashad v. Har Narain,, 1970 (1) R.C.J. 8. Before going into the authorities(sic). cited by the learned Counsel, it is necessary that the pleadings of the parties. as referred to above, may be looked into The landlord has clearly slated that he his no residential house in the urban area of Amritsar City at the present and that he is residing at Khalra, a border town, from where he wants to shift to Amritsar From these pleadings it is quite clear (hat all the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rest Restriction Act, l949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been pleaded by the landlord in his application The learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that in any case, the third ingredient that the landlord has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. in the said urban area has not been pleaded I am unable to accept this contention It may be that the very word of the Act have not been used by the landlord, but when he has stated that he is residing at Khalra, a border town from where he wants to shift to amritsar, it is implicit and it will be deemed to have been pleaded that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. The very fact that the landlord is not residing in the urban area concerned and he wants to shift from another place to this area, does connote that be has not vacated such a building. As a matter of fact, on these averments, the third ingredient does not arise Of course, if the landlord is residing in the same urban area concerned in which the premises in dispute are situated, it may be necessary in a given case to plead specifically that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause, in the said urban area But when a landlord is residing outside and wants to shift to that urban area, after the premises are vacated it is implicit that he has not vacated such a building in the said urban area It it is so then this contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant Petitioner has no force on the facts and the pleadings of the present case. In any case. In the Full Bench authority in Banke Roms case, (supra), it has been made amply clear in para 12 thereof that "However it may be made clear that when it is held that it is essential to plead that the ingredients of Sub -clauses (b) and (c) in the eviction application by the landlord, it should not be understood that under no circumstances, in the absence of pleadings, the evidence regarding the ingredients envisaged in sub Clauses (b) and (c) can be looked into This is not peculiar to the eviction applications Similar consideration came into operation even in the case of suits which are governed by the specific and detailed provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding pleadings". In view of these observations made by the Full Bench, it is quite clear that it will be a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case that whether there is evidence regarding the necessary ingredients envisaged in sub clauses (b) and (o) of Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the Act and whether the same can be looked into It cannot be held as an absolute rule that if no averment as such has been made in the application for ejectment the application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Even in Onkar Nath's case (supra), it has been found that there were neither any pleadings nor any proof of the necessary ingredients, and, therefore, under these circumstances it was observed that the landlord must plead and prove all the necessary ingredients in his application for ejectment(sic). Of course, this proposition of law, cannot be disputed. Before the Full Bench of this Court referred to above, no reference has been made he facts of the revision petition in the reference order, because only the legal question was raised in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court. Under these circumstances , it had become necessary to observe in para 12 there of that it may be made clear that when it is held that it is essential to plead the ingredients of sub Clauses (b)and (a) in the eviction application by the landlord, it cannot be understood that under no circumstances in the absence of pleadings, the evidence regarding the ingredients as envisaged in sub Clauses (b) and (c) can be looked into I am supported in this view by a judgment of this Court in Paramjit Singh and other v. Bawa Gurdas Ram (Dead) and others(4) As observed earlier, the other authorities cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioner do not require any consideration as in none of then it has been held as sueb that the application for ejectment is liable - to be dismissed on this short ground alone without going into the merits and the evidence on the record.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner was unable to assail the concurrent findings of the Authorities below as to the bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own use and occupation Moreover, this is a finding of fact which has been arrived at after the appreciation of the evidence on the record.;