- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated May 6, 1975, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), by which the order of eviction by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, was upheld and the appeal by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) The premises, in dispute, are described as tabela having barsati, in the lease deed, Exhibit R.W. 4/1, executed by the tenant-petitioner in favour of Devi Dass, the original landlord, on April 12, 1962. Subsequent thereto, the original landlord created a trust known as Devi Dass Hira lal Charitable rust. The tenant petitioner continued to be the tenant of the respondent trust. In 1972, eviction application was filed against the tenant-petitioner under section 13 of the Act. Eviction was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement by the respondent and also on the allegation that the petitioner had affected material alterations and impaired the utility of the premises, in dispute, and that he had changed the user of the premises without permission of the landlord. This was contested by the petitioner. After the evidence had been led on both sides, it was held by the Rent Controller that the respondent required the demised premises bonafide for his own use and that the petitioner had also made material alternations and thus impaired the utility of the property. The landlord-respondent was however negatived so far as the third allegation regarding the change of user by the tenant-petitioner was concerned. Appeal by the tenant-petitioner also did not succeed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the landlord-respondent had not impleaded the three ingredients as provided under section 13(3)(a)(1) of the Act. In the eviction petition, nor has adduced any evidence relating thereto and consequently the order of eviction stands vitiated. I have perused the eviction application. It cannot be disputed that the requisite ingredients as given in sub-clauses (b) and (c) of the said provision have not been impleaded. This is conceded by the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent also. Consequently, the finding relating to the ground of bonafide requirement by both the Courts below cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarswati Devi, 1977 1 RCR(Rent) 595 , well as the Supreme Court decision in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, 1980 1 RCR(Rent) 304 . (2);