G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition in whose favour, eviction order was passed by the learned Rent Controller but the same was set aside in appeal.
(2.) THE landlady, Mohinder Kaur sought the ejectment of her tenant, Sudesh Kumari from the demised premises being House No. 8/64, situated in the area of Mohalla Sheikhanwala, Kapurthala consisting of two rooms, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, the demised premises were required for her personal necessity and that the building in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The landlady specifically averred in the ejectment petition that since her husband who was in service in the Revenue Department of Haryana, had retired on September 30, 1988, she wanted to settle at Kapurthala permanently along with him and that she or her husband had no other house in their names except the house in question. Respondent-tenant filed written statement. Relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was, however, denied that the landlady required the premises for her own use and occupation. The respondent having tendered the arrears of rent along with interest and costs on the first date of hearing, the first ground was not pressed. The second ground that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation also did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller, there being no cogent and reliable evidence on the said point. As regard the ground of personal necessity on which most stress had been laid by the landlady, learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been successful in proving that she required the premises for her own bona fide use and occupation and the respondent was liable to be evicted on that ground, and vide order dated January 22, 1990 directed the ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question. On appeal preferred by the tenant, learned appellate authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller regarding personal necessity. Ejectment application was consequently dismissed by order dated April 29, 1991. Dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority, the landlady has filed this revision petition.
(3.) THE primary ground of ejectment that survives now for purpose of this petition is that the house in question is needed by the landlady for her pwn use and occupation. During the course of arguments, it was agreed that the learned appellate authority had reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity only on two counts, (i) the landlady did not plead and prove all the ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (for short 'the Act') and (ii) that the landlady had failed to prove that she required the premises for her bona fide use and occupation.;