- (1.) The petitioner before me is the landlord of a residential building situated in Hissar town and occupied by the respondent as a tenant under him. The application giving rise to this petition prayed for ejectment of the respondent on various grounds of which only one is now material and that is that the building in dispute was bona fide required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation. That ground found favour with the learned Controller, who passed an order of eviction against the respondent, but the Appellate Authority took a different view and reversed the finding of the learned Controller with the result that the landlord's prayer for ejectment failed so that he has come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) In the application made by him to the Controller the ground above mentioned is stated thus in paragraph 3(b) : "The applicant requires the house for his own residence. The house which is in his possession is insufficient for his needs."
(3.) Nothing else is stated in connection with the alleged requirement of the landlord whose duty it was to make all the allegations of fact which he was called upon to prove under the law before the eviction of the respondent could be ordered. Those allegations are decipherable from the relevant portion of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) by which this case is governed. That portion states : "A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession - (1) In the case of a residential building, if- (a) He requires it for his own occupation (b) He is not occuping any other residential building, in the urban area concerned ; and (c) He has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, to the said urban area". Darshan Singh v. Jagdish Kumar and another, 1975 RCJ 19(S.N.) and Rajinder Singh Nanda v. Kewal krishan, 1975 RCJ 320everyone of these three ingredients must be alleged and proved. If anyone of such ingredients is either not proved or not alleged, the circumstance would disentitle the landlord to relief. But the defect in the application presented by the landlord to the Controller, is not such as to compel me to dismiss it here aid now. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that in the interests of justice the landlord may well be granted an opportunity of amending the application and making the necessary allegations therein so as to bring his case within the four corners of that part of the statute which I have reproduced above, if he can, in as much as the defect from which the application of the landlord as now been found to suffer was not pointed out at any earlier stage of the case.;