Mst. Sadiqan and others vs Mst. Jubedian and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is a petition filed on behalf of the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, dated 6fh May, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, directing his ejectment, has been maintained.

An application for ejectment has been filed by the landlord-Respondent against the tenant from a residential house, on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. This application was contested and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the Petitioner requires the house for personal use and occupation ?

Whether the application is mala fide ?

Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ?

Whether the application in the present form is not maintainable ?

The Rent Controller accepted the application of the landlord and directed the ejectment of the tenant, It was held by the Rent Controller that "taking into consideration the discussion made and authorities referred, I come to conclude thai applicant requires the demised premises bona fide for her use and occupation as accommodation already in occupation is just insufficient". An appeal against this order was filed by Wali Mohd., tenant, before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, Wall Mohd. died and his legal representatives, who are the present Petitioners, were brought on the record by the Appellate Authority. The finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for her own use and occupation, was maintained. Moreover, relying upon a judgment of this Court, reported Bakshi Chaman Lal v. Subhash Chand 1975 R C. R 366, it was observed, that "the question of bona fide requirement of the premises by the land lady is not to be gone into now. So the case need not be sent hack, nor the report of the Rent Controller need be called on the point, after allowing the amendment", These observations were made because the Petitioners contended before him that the landlady in her application has not mentioned that she has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rest Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, therefore, the case should be remanded on the ground. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Appellate Authority, the Petitioners have come up in the revision to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argued that since the landlord has failed to plead the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, the application is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. In any case, if the landlord wants to amend her application, she may be allowed to do the same and the ease be remanded to the Kent Controller for that purpose. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasti Devi (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112, a Full Bench judgment of this Court, and a Supreme Court authority, reported in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, 1979 (2) R.L.R. 226.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord has drawn my attention to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record. According to the learned Counsel, there is sufficient evidence on the record to show the bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises for his own use and occupation and there is also evidence as regards the other two ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record,I do not find any merit in this petition. In Civil Revision No. 613(sic) of 1975 (Darshan Kumar v. Mahant Bhagwan Parkash, C. R. N. 663 of 1975 decided by me on 17th January. 1980, it has been held, that "it will be a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case that there is evidence envisaged in sub Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(3)(a)(i)of the Act and whether the same can be looked into". Both the Full Bench judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court judgment, referred to above, have been discussed in that case Following the ratio of that case, I am of the opinion that there is evidence on the record which fully proves the necessary ingredients contained in Section 13(3)(sic) a)(i). Moreover, ingredients of sub Clause (b) of Section I3(3)(a)(i) are very much there in the application itself. The only Ingredient which can be said to have not been specifically pleaded is ingredient of sub Clause (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(i), for which there is evidence on the record No objection of this nature was ever taken by the tenant in the reply filed by him, nor it has been shown that how the tenant has been prejudiced by not specifically pleading this ingredient when the evidence is very much there on the record.

No other point has been urged

For the reasons recorded above, this petition falls and is dismissed with costs.