R. N. Mittal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Charnjit Singh tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority Kapurthala dated Jan., 17, 1975.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Kesar Singh, is the owner of the property and he leased it out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 8. He filed an application for ejectment against the tenant inter alia on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. The application was contested by the tenant who denied the allegation of the applicant. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord required the premises bona fide for his own was and occupation and consequently allowed the application for ejectment. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. He has come up in revision against the said order of the Appellate Authority to this Court.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord did not plead all the ingredients mentioned in Sec. 13(3) (a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. He further submits that it was the duty of the landlord to plead and prove all the aforesaid ingredients and unless he did so, no order of ejectment could be passed in the favour. In support of his contention be places reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Banke Ram Vs. Shmt. Saraswati Devi, 1977 (1) K.C.R. 595 .;