ACHHRA SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Achhra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) against the decision of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the petitioner-land lord sought the eviction of Om Parkash respondent-tenant mainly on two grounds (1) default in the payment of rent and (2) requirement of the demised house for the use and occupation of the petitioner had his family. So far as the first ground is concerned, the same was set at naught by the tender of the arrears along with costs et cetera on the first date of hearing before the Rent Controller. On the second ground, there is a concurrent finding of both the Rent Control Authorities that the need for the occupation of the Premises by the landlord was not bona fide.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that the civil revision petition was filed in this Court on 12th February, 1975 and was admitted for hearing on 23rd April, 1975. On 1st September, 1980, Civil Miscellaneous No 29 55/cii was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of the original ejectment application. In this civil miscellaneous application is was averred that earlier it was not necessary to plead all the ingredients of the ground for eviction in the ejectment application and these ingredient not having been mentioned in the same the ejectment application was fatally defective and was liable to be dismissed on this short ground. It was further pleaded in he said application that in view of the changed legal position, it is essential to incorporate all the ingredients of Section 13 (3) (A) of the Act in the ejectment application. The changed legal position has obviously a reference to the Full Bench decision of this court in Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi, (1977) 79 Punj LR 112: (AIR 1977 Punj and Har 158 ). The petitioner, therefore, desired that after para 6 of the original ejectment application a new para 6-A as detailed in he application for amendment may be added. The proposed new para is reproduced below for ready reference:-