BHAGAT RAM Vs. RAMJI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhagat Ram tenant has filed this revision petition against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated February 11, 1976.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Ramji Dass and Sat Paul, landlords, filed an application against the tenant for ejectment on the ground that they required the premises for their own use and occupation. The application was contested by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller came to a finding that the landlords required the premises for their own use and occupation He consequently ordered ejectment of the tenant. The tenant went up in appeal. The Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. He has now come up In revision against that order to this Court.

(3.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlords were required to plead and prove all the ingredients given in Section 13(3) (a)(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which they failed to do in the present case. In support of his contention he places reliance on a Full bench decision of this Court Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi, 1977 AIR(P&H) 158. I have considered the argument and find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.