TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE Rent Tribunal vide order dated 8.4.2005 ordered for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of his landlord and said order of the Rent Tribunal was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 6.8.2009., therefore, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-tenant. Before proceeding with the matter, it will be worthwhile to mention here that how mechanically the petitions can be filed in the Rent Tribunal is fully proved from the present petition. In the Rent Control Act, 2001 by Section 22 it has been provided that every petition or appeal as far as possible shall be in model form specified in Schedule-A and Schedule-B. The landlady-applicant assisted by her counsel mechanically complied with the requirement of said Section 22 (and also mechanically complied in filling up performa eviction petition as typed by the typist) and submitted the following petition, which is quoted in toto to understand that whether there was any application of mind: JUDGEMENT_3801_RAJLW4_2010Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_3801_RAJLW4_2010Image2.jpg JUDGEMENT_3801_RAJLW4_2010Image3.jpg A bare perusal of the above petition clearly shows that it is nothing but filling up the columns in some form, which can be for even obtaining a railway ticket. In the above application /petition, against column No. 8 stated that she has filed the petition (only) because of the reason that applicant is owner of the property! She nowhere stated any facts for building up grounds for eviction against her tenant of her personal need for the premises. In para No. 13, which is clause for relief, the applicant prayed that the rent may be enhanced and suit premises is required, for the need of the applicant and her two sons out of three sons. When and how this need arose are not pleaded in the above said application. Firstly, the matter proceeded ex-parte and decree was passed which was set aside on an application of non-applicant tenant-petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner-non-applicant contested the eviction petition by filing reply. The petitioner-tenant had no objection to application; even of lack of grounds for eviction of petitioner-tenant in the main body of the petition. Not only this, but the petitioner-tenant submitted reply to the prayer made in eviction petition and disputed the need of the premises for non-petitioner- landlady. Issues were framed on both the grounds; whether the rent is required to be enhanced as per Section 6 of the Act of 2001 and second is that the suit premises is required by the landlady for her personal need as well as for the need of her children. The petitioner-tenant had no objection for framing issue of personal necessity of non-petitioner-landlady.
(3.) BE it as it may be and the manner in which the total pleadings may be, as noticed above, the tenant-present petitioner submitted detailed reply to the application and in para No. 13 of the reply specifically contested the issue of personal bonafide necessity of the landlady by treating it a ground for petitioner's eviction from the suit premises and also took specific plea that the applicant is residing in Government allotted residence and her sons are in service, therefore, she has no personal bonafide necessity for the suit premises. The plaintiff was cross-examined on the issue of personal bonafide necessity and then petitioner-tenant also gave his evidence contesting the issue of bonafide necessity. The tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal decided the issue of personal bonafide necessity in favour of landlady and now the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in writ jurisdiction is that since there was no pleading for personal bonafide necessity of the landlady in the petition filed by the non-petitioner and the plea of personal bonafide necessity has been taken only in the relief clause, therefore, for want of sufficient pleadings the eviction petition of the applicant should have been rejected. Further more, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that, original petition filed by the petitioner was only under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 whereunder only it can be increased, which is apparent from the column No. 7 of the petition and it was so till the Rent Tribunal decided the eviction petition. However, in the appellate court, in appeal preferred by the tenant, the appellate court allowed the application of the landlady filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and by which for the first time the non-petitioner-landlady was allowed, that too only, to incorporate "Section 9(0" in column No. 8 of the petition so as to make the petition specifically under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. That application was allowed by the appellate tribunal on 25.2.2010 and on next day, on 26.2.2010, the appeal was decided by the appellate tribunal upholding the eviction order passed by the tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that when there is no pleading, no evidence could have been produced to prove fact, relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Onkar Nath vs. Ved Vyas reported in AIR 1980 SC 1218, HD Vashishta vs. M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I)(P) Ltd. reported in AIR 1979 SC 134 and Dr. (Mrs.) ND Khanna vs. M/s. Hindustan Industrial corporation, New Delhi reported in AIR 1981 Delhi 305. ;