J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 11th April, 1975, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was maintained.
(2.) The order of ejectment against the tenant-petitioner has been passed on the ground of bonafide need for the use and occupation of the landlord-respondent. The demised premises formed part of a house which was purchased by the landlord-respondent from Malhant Tara Singh, for a consideration of Rs. 4,000 vide registered deed dated 8th Sept., 1970. The landlord was occupying the ground floor of the said house as a tenant under the aforesaid vendor whereas the tenant was occupying the other portion of the said house of a monthly rent of Rs. 8.00. After the purchase, the present application for ejectment was filed on 26th Oct., 1970, on the ground that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for its own use and the tenant has not brought any evidence to show that the landlord is playing any fraud or deception for seeking this eviction as alleged by him in the written statement. It has been observed by the Appellate Authority that from the totality of the circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, he is satisfied that the respondent requires the premises bonafide for his own occupation. Feeling aggrieved against this, the tenant-petitioner has come up in revision petition to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to assail the concurrent finding of both the Authorities below. Otherwise also, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. However, the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner vehemently argued that the landlord has failed to plead the necessary ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and therefore, the application for ejectment is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, in support of his contention, he relied upon Om Parkash Vs. Jaswant Rai, 19/5 R.C.R. 702 and Banke Ram Vs. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 R.C.R. 595 . After going through these authorities and the pleadings of the parties, I do not find any force in this contention. In the application for ejectment, the landlord has clearly pleaded in para 5(b), that the tenancy unit is bonafide required by applicant for his residence. The applicant has five daughters and a wife. He has no residential accommodation within municipal urban area of Amritsar and is living at sufferance with him nearest relatives. The applicant had purchased the property for keeping his residence." In reply thereto, the tenant has stated in his written statement, that "this sub-para is denied. The applicant dues not bonafide require the property for his own use and occupation. He is in possession of sufficient accommodation in the Urban Area of Amritsar. It is denied that the applicant is living at sufferance with his nearest relatives. The number of the property and the name of the relatives has been intentionally suppressed. It is essential under the law to specify these Particulars in the application. All other allegation made in the para are denied." From these pleadings and the evidence an the record, it cannot be said that necessary ingredients of Sec. 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, has not been pleaded and proved on the record. There is evidence in the record that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned and that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the said urban area. There is no evidence to the contrary on behalf of the tenant-petitioner. Under these circumstances, the tenant-petitioner cannot be allowed to take any such objection at this stage when there is already evidence on the record of no prejudice is claimed to have been caused to him. In Om Parkash's case (supra), the matter was not decided on this ground alone, but the petition was decided on merits. As regards Banke Ram's case (supra), which is equivalent to 1977 (1) R.C.J. 332, in pare 12 thereof, it has been observed, that "However, it may be made clear that when it is hold that it is essential to plead the ingredients of sub-clauses (b) and (c) in the eviction application by the landlord, it should not be understood that under no circumstances in the absence of pleadings, the evidence regarding the ingredients envisaged in sub-clauses (b) and (c) can be looked into. This is not peculiar to the eviction applications. Similar considerations come into operation even in the case of suits which are governed by the specific and detailed provision of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding pleadings".;