GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J. - (1.) NAND Kishore and Vidya Sagar sought ejectment of their tenant from a residential house in Amritsar on the ground of personal necessity. In the ejectment application all that was stated about this matter, was as follows :- "that the demised premises is bonafide required by the applicants for their personal use and occupation. That the applicants have not vacated any other premises within the urban area of Amritsar since the commencement of the Act. The applicants are not in possession of any other accommodation for their residence within the urban area of Amritsar".
(2.) NO other details were mentioned in the ejectment petition as to why they needed the house for their own residence. The landlord's address given in the ejectment petition was of Amritsar. It was not mentioned in the ejectment petition that they were living at Jammu where they had gone after the death of their father in search of some avocation or profession. As already noticed, no detailed reasons for shifting from Jammu to Amritsar were mentioned in the petition. The tenant contested the ejectment petition. The landlords produced three witnesses besides one of them appeared as A.W.4, A.W.2 is a Draftsman of District Courts Amritsar, who has prepared the site plain at the spot; whereas A.W.s. 1 and 3 stated that the landlords needs the house for their own occupation and that they have no other residential house in the urban area of Amritsar. Vidya Sagar, one of the landlords has appeared as A.W.4 and his entire statement in examination-in-chief is as follows :- "The demised premises was let out to the respondent through Parkash Chand Khanna. I along with my brother require the demised premises for our own use and occupation. We are not in possession of any premises within the municipal limits of Amritsar nor any such premises have been vacated by us. We have no intention to enhance the rate of rent. I am residing in a tenanted premises at Jammu. My brother Nand Kishore also resides with me at Jammu. I have one married sister. The name of her husband is Bansi Lal. She also visits me along with her family. The site plan of the demised premises is Ex. A.W.2/1, which is correct. I served a notice of termination of tenancy before filing of the present application upon the respondent. In case the demised premises is vacated by the respondent, I intend to reside at Amritsar in my own house. I am paying Rs. 35/- as rental of the premises tenanted by me at Jammu. Prior to my shifting to Jammu, I was residing at Amritsar. My father is a resident of Amritsar and I was also residing at Amritsar." The Rent Controller by judgment dated 24.12.1979 came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the landlord was wholly insufficient to make out a case for personal necessity. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that there was no intention of the landlord to do any business or to reside at Amritsar and their only intention was to raise the rent of the premises. On landlords' appeal, the appellate Authority reversed the decision of the trial Court and ordered ejectment. A reading of the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that it has contributed many things in ordering ejectment and in recording finding in favour of the landlords without landlord's saying anything that regard. The entire statement of the landlord in examination in-chief, has been reproduced above. A reading of the same does not show that the landlord showed any intention to occupy the house in dispute, nor he disclosed as to why he wanted to shift to Amritsar from Jammu, whether for doing any business or for taking up employment or for any other purpose. On the other hand, the Appellate Authority recorded the following findings :- "The applicants have shown their personal need for occupation of the demised premises on the allegations that they want to shift to Amritsar and start their business here."
(3.) NEITHER in the ejectment petition, nor in the statement made in Court the landlord has stated that they wanted to shift to Amritsar to do business or to carry on a tailoring shop. In view of the statement of the landlord it cannot be said that they have furnished any proof or inkling to be accepted by the Courts for shifting from Jammu to Amritsar. I am clearly of the view that the Appellate Authority has gone wrong in upsetting the well considered decision of the Rent Controller and in ordering eviction of the tenant on matters which were never pleaded in the ejectment petition, nor deposed to by Vidya Sagar landlord in his statement.;