S.C. Mittal, J. - (1.) The revision petition under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority affirm in the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, against Lady Doctor Asha Pawa on the ground that she ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of more than four months.
(2.) The only question raised before me by learned counsel for lady Dr. Asha Bawa is that her landlady Smt. Champa Daawan did not allege the other essential ingredients of Sec. 13(2)(v) of the Act above -said, the relevant part of which is in the following terms: - Section 13(2) -A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied: - (v) that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied shall make an order rejecting the application. A plain reading of the Sec. quoted above shows that the Rent Controller is required to determine two things (1) Whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months; and (2) Whether this has been done without reasonable cause. Learned counsel for the landlady Smt. Champa Dhawan has not controverted the contention of the learned counsel for Lady Doctor Asha Bawa that in the eviction application under consideration, the above said second ingredient of Sec. 13(2)(v) was not alleged. Therefore, the Rent Controller, framed the following issue: - Whether respondent No. 1 had ceased to occupy the premises in question for continuous period of more than 4 months? OPR. All the same, learned counsel for Smt. Champa Dhawan relying on Mohan Lal v/s. Kasturi Lal,, (1966) 68 P.L.R. Suppl. 35, contended that the onus of proving that Lady Doctor Asha Bawa had ceased to occupy the premises without sufficient cause was on her and she having led no evidence in this regard, the objection raised on her behalf is not tenable. I am unable to agree with the contention even in Mohan Lal's case decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, on the pleadings of the parties, the two issues framed by the Rent Controller were: - 1. Has the tenant ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of 4 months prior to the institution of the application? 2. If so, had the tenant a reasonable cause for not so occupying the building? Besides, it deserves mention that learned counsel for Lady Doctor Asha Bawa urged that if an issue had been framed, as was done in Mohan Lal's case she would have led evidence. In the absence of the requisite issue, there was no occasion for Lady Doctor Asha Bawa to prove the sufficient cause for her not being in occupation of the premises for more than four months. I find merit in the contention especially when in Banke Ram v/s. Smt. Saraswati Devi : (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112, it is well settled that the essential ingredients of a ground of eviction have to be pleaded and in the absence thereof, this Court has been liberal in allowing amendment of the eviction application vide Durga Parshad v/s. Harnarain : (1978) 80 P.L.R. 772, and M/s East Traders v/s. Shri Gurpiare Lal Saggar, (1980) 82 P.L.R. 241. In view of these pronouncements, learned counsel for Lady Doctor Asha Bawa has no objection to the passing of the following order.
(3.) The Rent Controller is directed to allow Smt. Champa Dhawan to make necessary amendment in the eviction application and after getting the written statement of Lady Doctor Asha Bawa to frame an additional issue The Rent Controller is further directed to give reasonable opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and to submit his report to this Court on or before 31st December, (sic). To come up for further proceedings on 9th January, 1981 as part heard.;