HARBANS LAL Vs. RAM DHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision No. 773 of 1968 arises out of the following circumstances. Ram Dhan landlord respondent made an application on 7.10.1965 to the Rent Controller for eviction of his tenant Harbans Lal petitioner from a portion of his house, situate at Ludhiana, on the two-fold ground, namely, (1) that the landlord required the premises for his own occupation and also that of his family, and (2) that the tenant had failed to pay the rent due. On the first hearing of the application for ejectment, the tenant paid the arrears of rent together with interest and costs. This ground for eviction thus ceased to exist. On the second ground the Rent Controller held that only the landlord and his wife were living in an apartment of this house, while the other members of his family were living away from Ludhiana; and the two rooms in the occupation of the landlord were sufficient for his residence and that consequently he did not bonafide require the leased portion of his house for his own occupation. In consequence, he dismissed the landlords petition. The landlord went in appeal to the appellate authority. Additional evidence was led before the appellate authority to show that the roofs of the two rooms in the occupation of the landlord had collapsed and that nothing was left of the portion in his occupation excepting a verandah and an open courtyard. The appellate authority held that the landlord bonafide required the accommodation in the occupation of the tenant, not only for his own use but also for the use of his married daughters, son and other children, who frequently visited him and stayed with him.

(2.) By means of an application for amendment of the written statement filed before the appellate authority an attempt was made by the tenant-petitioner to set up the plea that the landlord had failed to give him fifteen days notice as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that his petition was liable to be dismissed on that score alone. This application of the tenant was disposed of by the appellate authority by a separate order dated 30.11.1967. It was held that this plea was not taken up by the tenant in his written statement before the Rent Controller, and at that late stage he could not be allowed to amend the written statement for introducing this plea. It was further held that the tenant by omitting to raise this plea, in time, in the written statement had waived this objection. In the result, the application of the tenant was dismissed. Landlord's appeal was subsequently accepted by a separate order, dated 1.6.1968, and the eviction of the tenant was ordered. Against that order, dated 1.6.1968, of the appellate authority, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) The first contention of Mr. S.S. Kang, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was ever given by the landlord to the tenant. This was an essential prerequisite to the maintainability of his eviction application. It is urged that the revision petition be accepted on this short ground and the order of the appellate authority set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred to a recent full Bench judgment of this Court in Bhaiya Ram v. Mahavir Parshad, Civil Revision No. 913 of 1967, decided on 3.10.1968 (since reported as 1968 P.L.R. 1011). The learned counsel for the respondent has contended, in reply, that firstly, the petitioner has not, in this revision petition, come against the order, dated 30.11.1967, of the appellate authority, and he cannot, therefore, be allowed to regitate this plea in this revision which is directed only against the order, dated 1.6.1968. He has also relied on the fact that this plea is not even faintly adumbrated in the written statement of the tenant. Secondly, it is urged that the rule laid down by the full Bench in Bhaiya Ram's case applies only to contractual tenancies, while the case in hand is one of a statutory tenancy.