- (1.) This petition arises out of the following facts.
(2.) PishoriLal, petitioner-landlord filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act before the Rent Controller for ejectment of the respondent. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner, but admitted that he was a tenant under the petitioner. The parties contested on the following issues : (1) What is the rate of rent OPP (2) Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for own use and occupation . OPP. (3) Whether the tender is valid OPR (4) Whether the notice given in invalid ; if so, its effect OPR (5) Relief. The Rent Controller decided issues Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the landlord- petitioner and against the tenant-respondent and issue No. 2 was decided against the landlord-petitioner and in favour of the tenant-respondent. The application for ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller on the basis of his findings on issues Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as the tender was regarded as insufficient by him. Dissatisfied by the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant-respondent filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. At that stage, the tenant- respondent made an application for amendment in the written statement and the amendment sought for was that the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act was not applicable in the area and that relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied. This application was allowed by the Appellate Authority. It is against this order of the Appellate Authority that the landlord has filed this petition.
(3.) I have perused the order of the Appellate Authority and I see no justification for the amendment which was allowed by the Appellate Authority. It is stated at the bar by Mr. Arora that the area in dispute came under the municipal jurisdiction of the Municipal Committee, Ludhiana in October, 1975 and that the application for ejectment was filed on 29th April, 1976. Both these pleas were available to the tenant-respondent at the time of filing his written statement.;