SATPAL SINGH Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a tenant who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the landlord. The premises in dispute is a shop located at Kothi Road, Nawanshahr, Punjab.

(2.) This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook as well as the record.

(3.) The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner contends that the petition is liable to be dismissed as the landlord has failed to plead the necessary ingredients under Sec. 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the eviction petition. While relying upon a judgment passed by a Full Bench of this Court in Bank.eRamVsL Shrimati SarasvatiDevi1977(1)RCR(Rent) 595, he contends that the landlord has mischievously added the word 'suitable' in order to defeat the very purpose of the requirements. He further contends that in the absence of pleadings, the evidence cannot be considered, therefore the judgments passed by the Courts below are perverse. While referring to the deposition of Sh. Ashwani Kumar (cousin of the landlord), who has been examined by the tenant as RW-2, the learned counsel submits that one shop of the landlord is lying vacant and the landlord can occupy the same.