BEHARI LAL Vs. KHUSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Behari Lal filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ( for short, called the Act) for ejectment of the respondent from the house in dispute on the ground that he required the same for the residence of his married son Madan Lal. His claim was upheld by the Rent Controller and an order of ejectment was passed. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed that order vide judgment dated February 17, 1979, on the ground that no evidence was led to prove one of the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act that his son was neither in occupation of any other accommodation nor had vacated such accommodation within the locality concerned. The correctness of the said judgment has been challenged by the landlord by way of this petition under Section 15 of the Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the pleadings of the parties contended that an averment had been made in the petition that Madan Lal son of the landlord had no other accommodation in his possession nor had vacated any such accommodation but the same had not been specifically denied in the written statement filed by the tenant. The averment of the landlord consequently is deemed to have been admitted and this interference is further strengthened by the act that no issue covering this matter was framed. The argument of the learned counsel is well-merited. After going through the pleadings, the learned counsel for the tenant also had no answer to the same.

(3.) Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order set aside. As no finding was recorded on the other issues, the case is remanded to the learned Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law. The parties, through their counsel have been directed to appear in the said Court on October 28, 1980. Revision petition allowed.