D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) The order of the appellate authority allowing the petition of the landlord-respondent for the eviction of the petitioner herein from the house in question is challenged in this Court, primarily on the ground that ingredients of clause (c) of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) had neither been pleaded nor proved by the landlord respondent. The relevant clause is in the fallowing words:- "13(3)(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order detecting the tenant to put the landlord in possession:- (i) in the case of a residential building, if (a) he requires it for his own occupation, (b) xx xx xx xx (c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area "
(2.) The landlord-respondent had sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was to retire on 1st Feb., 1973, from service and wanted to settle down at Batala in the ancestral house which was in occupation of the petitioner-tenant. In sub-para (h) of para 2 of the application he had mentioned that the applicant was not in possession of any premises in Batala nor he had vacated any.
(3.) While appearing as his own witness as A.W. 3, he deposed that he had no other house in his possession in Batala nor he had vacated any such house Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed that what the landlord-respondent had pleaded was not the fame thing what clause (c) of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act required of him to plead and sought to support his contention with various decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court These being Shri Banke Ram Vs. Smt. Sarasri Devi, 1977 PLR. 112 (F.B.) , Onkar Nath Vs. Ved Vyas, 1979(2) R.L R. 226 , and Hans Raj and another Vs. Balraj Singh, 1978(1) R.C.J. 286 . In my opinion the learned counsel is not right. What clause (c) in question requires a landlord to plead is that he had not vacated any residential building after the commencement of the Act or if he had so vacated then it was not without sufficient cause. Once the landlord pleads that he had not vacated any such building then that pleading would entirely satisfy the requirement of clause (c) of section 113)(a)(b) of the Act for when the and is that the landlord bad not vacated any such building, the question of his saying that he had 'not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act would be utterly meaningless. As regards the decisions referred to by the learned counsel, it is unnecessary to examine any of them in detail. Suffice it to pay that those decisions turn on the question as to whether It is essential for the landlord to plead the ingredients of clauses (a), (h) and (c) of section 13(3) (a,(i) of the Act. There it no dispute regarding the proposition that the landlord-respondent has to plead and prove the ingredients of the said clauses. Here the question on facts is whether he had pleaded the same I have held that the landlord-respondent has pleaded the ingredients of clause (c) of section 13(3) (a) (t) of the Act and has also proved the same;