Mohan Lal vs Ram Dass

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Misc. No. 3764/CII of 1979 and Civil Revision No. 648 of 1975.

Briefly the facts are that Ram Dass landlord Respondent filed an application for ejectment of his tenant Mohan Lal Petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The application was allowed by the Controller. The tenant than went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. He has now come up in revision to this Court.

The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that it was incumbent upon the landlord to prove all the ingredients, mentioned in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of East Punjab Urban Rest Restriction Act. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Banke Ram v. Shrimatt Sarasti Devi (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112 and Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas (1979) 1 R.L.R. 226.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. Maluk Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent, referred to Paramjit Singh v. Bawa Gurdas Ram (Dead), (1977) 2 Rent. L.R. 165 in which it has been observed that even if the ingredients have not been pleaded but have been proved by the landlord, the orders of the authorities below may not be set aside. The aforesaid observations are not applicable to the present case as in this case the landlord has not stated that he did not vacate such a building without any sufficient cause after coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Therefore, the abovesaid case is distinguishable.

Faced with that difficulty, Mr. Maluk Singh has requested that he may be allowed to amend the application for ejectment. To this the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no objection. He may move an application for amendment before the Rent Controller, who will allow the same. He will also allow the tenant to file written statement to the amended application for ejectment. Thereafter the Rent Controller shall allow the parties to lead additional evidence, if they want to do so.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the Authorities below and remand the case to the Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on January 14, 1980. Civil Miscellaneous No. 3784/CII of 1979 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. No costs.