CHAMELI DEVI Vs. JANKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving rise to this Revision petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act are that the application of Smt. Chameli Devi seeking eviction of her tenant Smt. Janki Devi was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani. The appeal filed by the former was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani.

(2.) Before the Appellate Authority the question arose 'whether Smt. Chameli has pleaded and proved the three essential ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the above said Act.' The Appellate Authority held that she had pleaded all the three essential ingredients but failed to prove one of them, viz , that Smt. Chameli Devi had not vacated any residential building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act in the urban area concerned. Her learned counsel pointed out that since Smt. Janki Devi did not specifically deny this averment made by Smt. Chameli Devi in her application, therefore, this ingredient of Section 13 of the Act was not required to be proved. Support was sought from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sudarshan Kumar v. Shri Kesar Mal, 1980 2 RCJ 381, which lays down that where the landlord specifically pleaded that he had not vacated the premises after the commencement of the Act, he need not lead oral evidence, if the averment is not specifically denied by the tenant in the written statement. That being so, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision on merits according to law. The parties to appear there on October 27, 1980. No order as to costs. This Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Revision allowed-Case remanded.