RAJINDER Vs. UMRAO PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed Rajender tenant against an order of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Umrao Parshad, landlord, filed an application for ejectment inter alia on the ground that he required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation and for his married son, Other points were taken but they are not relevant for the purposes of the revision petition as they were not taken before the Appellate Authority. The application for ejectment was contested by the tenant who controverted the aforesaid allegations. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord did not require the premises for his on use and occupation and for his married son. Consequently, he dismissed the application. The landlord went up in appeal. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and held that the landlord required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his married son. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and ordered ejectment of the tenant. He has come up in revision against that order to this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the landlord has not pleaded all the ingredients mentioned in section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which are mandatory and should have been pleaded and proved. He places reliance on Banke Ram v. Sarasti Devi, 1977 79 PunLR 112.