Sahi Ram vs Ram Avtar

Prem Chand Jain, J.—Sahi Ram has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Hissar, dated 4th of January, 1974 by which the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, dated 20th of December, 1972, has been affirmed.

Ram Avtar and Hari Om filed an application for ejectment against the petitioner on the grounds that he had not paid rent from November 1969 on Wards, that his behaviour towards the neighbourers was not good, that be was a source of constant nuisance and harrassment to the landlords themselves, that the landlords required the premises in dispute for their own use and occupation, and that the petitioner had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises.

The application was contested by the petitioner and the pleas raised by the landlords were specifically denied.

On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed by the Rent Controller. The parties led evidence. On the appraisal of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment in favour of the landlords and against the petitioner on the grounds that the premises was required by the landlords for their personal use and the petitioner was guilty of nuisance to the landlords. On appeal, the said findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed. It is in these circumstances that the present revision petition has been filed.

The main ground urged before me by Mr. H.L. Sarin Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, is that the ejectment application deserves to be rejected on the short ground that all the three ingredients of section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, have not been pleaded. In support of his contention the learned counsel places reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112.

On the other hand, Mr. N.C. Jain does not controvert this contention of the learned counsel However, his submission is that after permitting the landlords to amend the ejectment application, a report may be asked for from the learned Rent Controller and that thereafter the matter be decided on merits.

There is no gainsaying that in view of the judgment of this Court in Banke Ram''s cose (supra), the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, cannot legally be sustained. The only question that requires determination is whether the amendment should be allowed in this Court and a report be asked for or the case be sent back to the Rent Controller for deciding the same on merits after permitting the landlord-respondents to amend the ejectment application.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I choose to adopt the latter course, i.e., to remand the ease to the learned Rent Controller for deciding the same on merits after permitting the landlords-respondents, if they so desire, to amend the ejectment application and bring it in conformity with the law laid down in Banke Ram''s case (supra).

Consequently, I allow this revision petition, set aside the orders of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, Hissar, and send back the case to the learned Rent Controller for deciding the same on merits. The learned Rent Controller would permit the landlord-respondents to file the amended ejectment application. The tenant petitioner would also be entitled to file written statement to that amended application. Thereafter, the Rent Controller would proceed to decide the application in accordance with law.

The parties, through their learned counsel, have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Hissar on May 14, 1979. It may be observed that the learned Rent Controller would try to dispose of the ease, if possible, expeditiously.