JAGAN NATH AGGARWAL Vs. SMT. NEELAM RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed on behalf of the tenant Petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 31st May, 1976. whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller, directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) A petition for eviction was filed against Jagan Nath tenant -Petitioner, from the premises situate in Chowk Neemwala, Ludhiana, on the allegation that Jagan Nath was in occupation of the same as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs 40/ and that he neither paid nor tendered rent since April. 1969, and the Neelam Rani needed the disputed property for her own use and occupation after reconstructing the same as the house in dispute is in a dilapidated (sic) condition. It was also pleaded that the tenant has committed such acts as have materially impaired the value and utility of the house and further that he is a nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood. In reply filed on behalf of he tenant it was denied that the house was required for her own use and occupation or that the house was in a dilapidated condition, muchless that the landlord warned to reconstruct it Other allegation were also denied and on the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issue:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord has contended that ii may be that in view of the Full Bench judgment, the necessary ingredients should have been pleaded or proved but in the present case the orders of ejectment have been passed on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal use and occupation as well as on the ground that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. If the order can be maintained on the second ground, that is, the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, then the necessity of making any remand will not arise in the present case. I find force in this contention of the learned Counsel. In reply to this, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as a matter of fact this was never pleaded to be a separate ground by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant as It is an independent ground provided under Section 13 of the ejectment application wherein it has been stated that "the Petitioner needs the house in question for her own occupation after reconstructing the same as the said house is in a dilapidated condition " It was also continued by the learned Counsel that the grounds, i e , the ground for bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation and that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, are mutually exclusive and therefore there being no specific pies on that ground, no order of ejectment could be passed against the tenant on a ground which was never pleaded