Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Lalji Dass tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority dated March 13, 1975.
(2.) WALAITI Ram landlord filed an application for ejectment against the tenant inter alia on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. The tenant contested the applltion and controverted the allegations of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord did not require the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. Consequently he dismissed the application. The landlord went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and allowed the application for ejectment. The tenant has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority to this Court. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that landlord has not pleaded all the ingredients mentioned in Section 10(3)(a)(i)(sic) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). He argues that unless the landlord pleads all the ingredients and proves them, the authorities under the Act can not order ejactment on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. The learned Counsel for the Respondent admits that the aforesaid ingredients were required to be pleaded but have not been pleaded. He, however, requests that he in may be allowed to amend the application for ejectment. He has also filed a Civil Miscellaneous No. 3914 -C -II -1979 for amendment of the application for ejectment. I find that the request of the counsel for the Respondent is reasonable. He may, however, file a fresh application for amendment before the Rent Controller, who shall allow the amendment of the application tor ejectment to the extent mentioned above He shall, thereafter, decide the matter afresh after giving the tenant an opportunity of filing the written statement to the amended application for ejectment. If the parties want to lead further evidence, they nay be allowed to do so. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the orders of the authorities below are liable to he set aside. Therefore, I accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the authorities below and remand the case to the Rent Controller who shall decide the matter afresh as indicated above. No order as to Costs.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid order, C.M. No. 3914 -C -II of 1979 becomes infructuous and it is disposed of accordingly.;