M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) This is a tenant's revision-petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ferzoepur, whereby the ejectment order passed against him by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur, stands confirmed.
(2.) The tenanted premises situated at Ferozepur fetch rent of Rs. 10 per mensem. Structurally, undisputedly, it is a house. The premises were on rent with the tenant-petitioner where at, admittedly, he had installed hand-looms to promote a commercial activity. The eviction of the tenant was claimed by Smt. Asso Devi sad others, landlords, on three grounds, namely: (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent for period 10-1-1973 to Oct., 1973 ; (ii) that the rented premises were required by landlords for their own personal occupation ; and (iii) that the tenant had made material charges in the building and thus materially affected the value and utility of the premises by change of user.
(3.) The tenant contested the petition for eviction. He demolished the ground for non-payment of arrears of rent by making timely tender thereof. The other two grounds and the defence gave rise to as many as five issues The learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant-petitioner on both the grounds namely, that the tenant had materially impaired the demised premises in value and utility by charge of user and that the landlords required the demised premises for their own use and occupation. On appeal before the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, the order of the Rent Controller was sustained subject to the variance that the eviction was permitted only with regard to change of user and was not specifically disposed of with regard to personal requirement of the landlords. This finding came into being since the tenant successfully pointed out before the Appellate Authority that the eviction petition was bereft of requisite pleading with regard to the essential particulars embodied in section 13(3)(a)(i) of the 4, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and necessarily any proof in that direction could not be looked into in the absence of pleadings. The learned Appellate Authority did not think it essential to permit the landlords amendment of their pleadings. In order to feed the second ground of eviction but left them confined to the first around of eviction, while maintaining the order of the Rent Controller.;