SHIV CHAND Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance made in the petition is that the landlord did not specifically plead in the application for ejectment that the accommodation in his possession in the ancestral house was insufficient for his personal needs and those for his family. The learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have observed that there were 9 rooms in the ancestral house occupied by 16 members of the family. It was also observed that the respondent-landlord had a wife and our sons. He being an income-tax assessee, had the right to live in some style in the house which he purchased for his residence.

(2.) When a landlord files an application for ejectment on the basis of personal necessity, it is not always necessary for him to plead that the accommodation in his possession is insufficient for him. All that is required is that the tenant should have a fair notice of the case put forth by the landlord. When the evidence of the respondent was being led, the petitioner did not raise any objection that this plea should have been incorporated in the application for ejectment. He not only allowed the evidence to be led but also addressed arguments on this point before the learned Rent Controller. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that he has been taken by surprise. In any event, if the respondent does not occupy the premises within one year, it shall be open to the petitioner-tenant to avail of his remedies provided by the statute. There is no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is allowed two months to vacate the premises provided, of course, the petitioner deposits the entire arrears of rent including the rent for the next two months within ten days from today in the Court of the learned Rent Controller Revision petition dismissed.