AMAR NATH Vs. PIARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, dated 12th August, 1975, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) The landlord-respondent brought an application for ejectment under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground of his personal use and occupation (the ground which is the subject-matter of this revision petition). The Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority, have concurrently found that the need of the landlord is a bonafide one and he requires the premises for his own use and occupation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has contended that the landlord has failed to plead the necessary ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a) of the Act, and therefore, his application for ejectment is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In support of this contention, he cited Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, 1979 2 RentLR 226; Durga Parshad v. Har Narain,1979 1 RCJ 8 and Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarosvati Devi,1977 RCJ 332. I have gone through the application for ejectment filed by the landlord-respondent. In pare 3 thereof, he has stated regarding it is bonafide requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation; whereas in pare 4, he has stated that he is not occupying any premises situated in the urban area concerned and he has further stated that he is at present residing at Ludhiana and wants to shift to Malerkotla for which purpose he needs the premises in dispute to be vacated by the tenant. In view of these pleadings, it cannot be said that the necessary ingredients of section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the Act, have not been pleaded or proved in the present case. When a landlord pleads that he is residing outside the urban area where the premises in dispute is situated, it presupposes that he has not vacated any such building in the urban area concerned. What is required is the substance and not the very words of the statute to be pleaded in an application for ejectment. If once it is pleaded that the landlord is residing outside the urban area concerned, clause (c) will be implicit and the question of pleading the third ingredient (c) specifically that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause, become immaterial. Of course, it will be a matter to be decided on the facts of each case. As regards the present case, it was specifically pleaded by the landlord that he is residing at Ludhiana and now he wants to shift to Malerkotla where the premises in dispute is situated. Under these circumstances, I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner.