Rajinder Parshad vs Sohan Lal

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The landlord is in revision against order of the learned Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, by which the application

filed u/s 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, ''the Act''), for seeking eviction from the shop (demised premises) on the

ground of personal necessity has been declined. In short, the landlord filed eviction petition in respect of the demised premises, inter-alia, on the

ground of personal necessity alleging that he is a retired teacher. His son Parveen Kumar is married and having two children but he is unemployed.

He wanted to start business alongwith his son in the demised premises and has got no other shop. It was also pleaded that ""the applicant is not in

possession of any other commercial site in the commercial area of Ferozepur Cantt since the commencement of the Act"". There is no specific

denial to the averments made by the tenant because it is only alleged that ""para No. 6 of the application is incorrect and hence denied"".

Learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The learned Appellate Authority has also recorded

it was correctly recorded by the learned Rent Controller that the applicant bonafide requires the demised premises for running business by his son

who is not dependant upon him"".

It was also observed ""he did plead in his application that he is not in possession of any other commercial shop in the urban area of Ferozepur

Cantt and substantiated that plea while making his statement in the Court as RW-1"". However, it has been observed that ""he did not plead the third

ingredient that he has not vacated any such non residential building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the urban area

concerned"".

On this ground, the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller, though it was in agreement with the

finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller that the need of the landlord is bonafide.

It is argued that the learned Appellate Authority has taken a hyptertechnical view while allowing the appeal of the tenant. He submits that though

it has been held in the case of Banke Ram Vs. Smt. Sarasti Devi, that all the three ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(b) and (c) of the Act are

required to be pleaded but in a latter judgment in the case of Daulat Ram Vs. Girdhari Lal, , the author of the Full Bench while sitting single has

observed :-

From the above discussion, it is clear that though the landlord petitioner had omitted to fully implead the ingredients of sub-clause (b) and (C), as

referred to above, yet thereby the respondent was not in any manner prejudiced and the, evidence on both sides was led as being fully aware of

these ingredients. From this evidence, it is crystal clear that the case of both the parties was that the landlord-petitioner had only one house,

namely, the premises in dispute, which were given to the respondent on lease in 1967. He had no other residential premises in the town or Barnala

where the premises in dispute, were situated and he had not taken any other premises on lease for occupation, therefore, the question of vacating

the same without any sufficient cause did not arise Besides, the landlord was living in the house of his sister and according to him, he was under

pressure from his sister''s son to vacate the same. In view of this situation, the mere application cannot be held to be fatal so as to warrant the

dismissal of the eviction application on this ground alone. There can be no dispute that on August 9, 1971, when the eviction petition was filed, the

interpretation of law relating to the impleading of the essential ingredients, as envisaged in sub-clause (B) and (C) was not finally settled and the

final position relating thereto emerged only after the Full Bench judgment is Banke Ram''s case (supra).

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that much water has flown after the decision of Banke Ram''s Case (Supra) and in the

case of Sat Parkash Chaudhary Vs. Kewal Krishan Malhotra, , this Court has held that :-

There is no dispute to the proposition of law as enunciated in the Full Bench judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, at

the same time the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that mere non-pleading of a fact, which is (sic) in the (sic), can always be rectified if a

relevant objection is taken at the initial stage. The petitioner failed to take any such objection in his reply to the petitioner. The pleadings have to be

considered broadly in a rent petition where it is not captive to strict law of interpretation which may be the situation in a civil suit. In rent proceeding

the rent Controller is merely obliged to hold an inquiry to look into the averment which have been made in the petition. In view of the fact that the

petitioner failed to take such objections and also in view of he fact that the respondent broadly pleaded his personal necessity and also the fact that

he had not vacated any house in the municipal area where the demised premises is situated, I am of the opinion that the flaw which has been

pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not fatal to the case of the respondent. The objection therefore has to be negated

In the case of Mohan Lal Vs. Rakesh Kumar Bhakoo and Another , the following observations have been made.

This Court in Banke Ram Vs. Smt. Sarasti Devi, has held that it is necessary for the landlord to plead necessary ingredients but it has been held

that if such necessary ingredients are not pleaded, the landlord is required to be provided with an opportunity to make necessary pleadings. Still

further, it has been held that the tenant should raise an objection in the written statement at the earliest to the effect that the necessary ingredients

have not been pleaded

The landlord has specifically pleaded that he is not in possession of any other commercial site in the urban area of Ferozepur Cantt and has also

specifically stated that he has no other shop which leads to the conclusion that there was no occasion for him to vacate any other shop in the same

urban area. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is hereby allowed. The order of the learned Appellate Authority is

reversed and that of the learned Rent Controller is restored.