J.V.Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition filed on behalf of the tenant Petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 31st May, 1976. whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller, directing his ejectment was maintained.
(2.) A petition for eviction was filed against Jagan Nath tenant -Petitioner, from the premises situate in Chowk Neemwala, Ludhiana, on the allegation that Jagan Nath was in occupation of the same as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs 40/ and that he neither paid nor tendered rent since April. 1969, and the Neelam Rani needed the disputed property for her own use and occupation after reconstructing the same as the house in dispute is in a dilapidated (sic) condition. It was also pleaded that the tenant has committed such acts as have materially impaired the value and utility of the house and further that he is a nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood. In reply filed on behalf of he tenant it was denied that the house was required for her own use and occupation or that the house was in a dilapidated condition, muchless that the landlord warned to reconstruct it Other allegation were also denied and on the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issue: (i) Whether the Respondent is liable to ejectment on the ground mentioned in para 3(b)(c) and (d) of the petition ? O.P.P. (ii) Whether the Respondent has beer served with a valid notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act by the Petitioner? OP P. (iii) Relief During the pendency of this application for ejectment the landlord made an application dated 11th July, 1972 with a prayer that the tenant should permit her to enter the house to prepare the report regarding the condition of the house In that application, it was specifically stated that one of the grounds of ejectment is that the premises in dispute are unfit for human habitation. There is another application also on the record, dated 30th November, 1972, riled by the landlord with a prayer that some local Commissioner be appointed to examine the property in dispute to note down the premises' condition "as it exists today". In this application again it was specifically stated that one of the grounds of ejectment is that the property in dispute is in dilapidated condition and so is unfit for human habitation. This plea of the landlord was never contested by the tenant on the ground that it was never a ground of ejectment pleaded. Both the parties led evidence on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal use and occupation as well as on the condition of the building as to whether the same had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. On the appreciation of the evidence the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that "My above discussion leads me to this conclusion that the disputed premises are in dilapidated condition and they are unfit for human habitation and the Petitioner requires them for her personal use and occupation after re constructing the same for which she had also got a plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, and as such the Respondent is liable to be ejected on this ground." In appeal the learned Appellate Authority has maintained this finding arrived at by the Rent Controller Feeling aggrieved by this concurrent finding of both the Courts, the tenant has came up in revision to this Court. The learned Counsel for the tenant Petitioner vehemently argued that the landlord has falled to plead the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Bent Restriction Act and on this ground alone the revision petition is liable to be accepted. Moreover was also pointed out that this was specifically - argued before the Appellate Authority but the learned Appellant Authority, relying upon Shri Krishan Lal Seth v. Smt. Pritam Kumar,, (1961) 63 P. L. R. 865 came to the conclusion that it is not necessary for the landlord to state in the application the necessary ingredients set out in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. According 10 the learned Counsel this Authority has been overruled subsequently and it has been authoritatively hold by the Full Bench of this Court in Banke Ram v. Sar sti Devi, (1977) 79 P. L. R. 112, that the landlord must plead all the necessary ingredients before an order of ejectment can be passed against the tenant.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord has contended that ii may be that in view of the Full Bench judgment, the necessary ingredients should have been pleaded or proved but in the present case the orders of ejectment have been passed on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal use and occupation as well as on the ground that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. If the order can be maintained on the second ground, that is, the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, then the necessity of making any remand will not arise in the present case. I find force in this contention of the learned Counsel. In reply to this, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as a matter of fact this was never pleaded to be a separate ground by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant as It is an independent ground provided under Section 13 of the ejectment application wherein it has been stated that "the Petitioner needs the house in question for her own occupation after reconstructing the same as the said house is in a dilapidated condition " It was also continued by the learned Counsel that the grounds, i e , the ground for bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation and that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, are mutually exclusive and therefore there being no specific pies on that ground, no order of ejectment could be passed against the tenant on a ground which was never pleaded;