JAILAL Vs. VED PARKASH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this eviction petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated November, 22, 1979, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dated June, 9, 1978, directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) Once Satish Singh, who was previously the owner of house No. 147, Sadar Basar, Amritsar Cantt. let out the demised premises which consisted of one room only to the tenant-petitioner. He sold that house to the landlords Ved Parkash and his mother Shrimati Shakuntla Devi vide two sale deeds dated August 27, 1975 and as such the tenant-petitioner became the tenant under them from the date of the purchase of the house, by operation of law. The landlords sought the ejectment of the petitioner inter alia on the ground of bonafide requirement for their use and occupation. It was pleaded in the ejectment application that they were not occupying any other residential building in the Urban area of Amritsar. In fact, they were residing with Raja Ram, father of Ved Parkash, Landlord, who was himself a tenant and not in their own rights and that they had not vacated any such building without any sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The allegations made in the ejectment application were controverted by the petitioner and on the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the landlords never pleaded that the accommodation in their possession was not sufficient to meet their requirement and since it was never pleaded, the tenant had no chance to meet this aspect of the case. It was also contended that during the pendency of the appeal, another tenant, namely, Ram Rakha, vacated the premises, but in spite of that, the landlords have not occupied the same. The application for additional evidence was wrongly dismissed by the Appellate Authority.