SUDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. SHRI KESAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are not disputed. In application for ejectment, the landlord averred that he did not vacate the premises after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), without sufficient cause. This specific averment in the petition was not specifically denied in the written statement. It is well settled that if a specific averment made is not specifically denied, it is deemed to be impliedly admitted and if there is admission on the record it is not necessary for the parties concerned to still lead other evidence to prove the facts so alleged. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. : A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 538. In the present case, a specific averment made was not specifically denied in the written statement. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that since the landlord did not mention in his oral statement that he had not vacated the premises after the commencement of the Act, without sufficient cause and, therefore, the ejectment could not be ordered.