- (1.) The decisions of the Courts below have been challenged in this revision petition by the tenant only on 5the ground that the landlord-respondent Thad not pleaded and proved that he had not vacated any residential building within the urban area in question after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The relevant paragraph of the amended application for eviction dated 7-11-1975, which had been taken notice by the appellate authority in its judgment, is in the following terms :- "That the applicant requires the premises for his personal residence, as he wants to shift to Kot Kapura and has no accommodation in the municipal limits of Kot Kapura and has not vacated any premises in the area of municipal limits of Kot Kapura. The applicant needs the premises for his own personal residence." According to the petitioner, as can be spelled out from ground No. 2 of the revision petition, the landlord in his application should have repeated the language of clause (c) of section 13(3)(i) of the Act in verbatim. Surely, that is not what is required. Once the landlord had pleaded that he had not vacated any building, then use of the expressions 'without sufficient cause' and 'after the commencement of this Act' become irrelevant. These are required to be pleaded in a case where the landlord had vacated some residential building after the commencement of the Act and that he had done so for a sufficient cause. If the stand taken is that he had not vacated any building, then the rest of it was not necessarily to be pleaded.
(3.) That the landlord had not vacated any residential building after the commencement of the Act is clear from his testimony, in which he mentioned that for the last 30 years he had resided in village Panj Garain sad had not vacated any residential building in Kot Kapura during that period. It appears that the petition was got admitted by suppressing the factum of the amended petition and, perhaps, it was for that very reason that the ex parte stay granted to the petitioner was later on vacated when true facts were brought to the knowledge of the Court.;