RADHIKA BAI Vs. KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Misc. No. 316 CII of 1977 and Civil Revision No. 1078 of 1975.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Shri Krishan landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenants inter alia on the ground that he required the premises for the use and occupation of his married son. The application was opposed by the tenants-petitioners who averred that it was a male fide application and the landlord-respondent did not require the promises for the aforesaid use. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord did not require the promises for the use and occupation of the married son. Consequently, he dismissed the same. The landlord went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who reversed the aforesaid finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the application for ejectment was a bonafide one and the landlord required the premises for his son. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal accepted the application for ejectment and ordered ejectment of the tenants. The tenants have come up in revision against the said order.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the landlord had not pleaded all the three ingredients mentioned in Section 13 (3)(a)(iv) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He further submits that it was mandatory for the landlord to plead and prove all the aforesaid ingredients, in support of his contention he has placed reliance on Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi, 1977 1 RentLR 417. Mr. Anand Swaroop, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has not challenged the aforesaid proposition of law. He, however, submits that he files an application (Civil Miscellaneous No. 316 - CII of 1977) praying that his client on allowed to amend the application for ejectment and take those pleas. He further contends that that application may be allowed and the case be remanded to the Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh, after allowing the applicant to lead evidence regarding the new pleas taken by him.