D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) THE Respondent land -lord, Gur Piara Lal. gave on rent to the Petitioner tenant, Messers Best Punjab Traders, a room, which the Respondent -landlord termed as the 'garage' and the Petitioner -tenant sought to label at 'store' or 'godown The Respondent landlord sought ejectment of the Petitioner thereform inter alia, on the ground that he needed the said garage for his own personal bonafide use In his application, he had pleaded the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a) (2)(b)and(c) of the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act, 194 (East Punjab Act No 11 of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the reply, that was filed, to the application, there was no specific dental of the averments which had relevance to Clauses (b) and (c) of section (13) (3) (a) (1) of the Act, with the result that no specific issue was framed by the Rent Controller in this regard Consequently, no evidence came to be seduced in support of that part of the pleadings which pertained to the ingredients of Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(sic) (a)(1) of the Act with the result that no specific issue was framed by the Rent Controller in this regard. Consequently, no evidence came to be adduced in support of that part of the pleadings which pertained to the ingredients of Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.
(2.) WHEREVER there has been total lack of pleadings of the ingredients of Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, this Court has been remitting the case to the Rent Controller for de novo trial after permitting the landlord to amend the petition by including the said ingredients therein. In the present case, the pleadings are complete, but in view of the fact that no specific issue was struck, the evidence could not baled(sic). The question that arises for consideration, therefore, is if the case is remitted to the Rent Controller with the direction to strike a fresh issue and permit both the parties to lead evidence and submit his report, would it tantamount to filling in the lacuna in the evidence of the landlord ? In my opinion It would not be a case of filling in the lacuna in the evidence. That situation arises where the Court bad framed the issue, the parties had an occasion to lead evidence in support of their respective stand and one or the other party had not availed the opportunity of adducing the evidence, and then if the Court was to afford a fresh opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in regard to such an existing issue Here, it is a case of striking an additional issue and requiring both parties to adduce evidence in accordance with their respective stand. I therefore, direct the Rent Controller to frame an additional issue regarding the ingredients mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub -section (3)(a)(c) of Section 13 of the Act and receive evidence of both the parties and submit his report through the appellate authority or the District Judge to this Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on March 3, 1980 The record of the case be sent to the Rent Controller (sic) forthwith.;