(1.) Mukand Lal, the landlord respondent, sought the ejectment of Ramesh, the tenant-petitioner, from the premises, in dispute. The tenant was inducted on the premises, in question, in November, 1975, on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-plus house tax etc. His ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation because the other accommodation which consisted of two rooms in his occupation was not sufficient to meet the requirement of his family which included his mother, his wife and five children. It was also averred that his eldest son, a doctor by profession, intended to start practice as a registered medical practitioner at Karnal. A further plea of non payment of rent was also raised in the ejectment application. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these allegations were controverted. On the pleading of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that from the conduct of the landlord as regards the payment of the rent, it is evident that the ejectment application is not bonafide one. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Tek Chand v. Wadhawa Ram,1981 83 PunLR 49. It was also contended that the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter called the Act), have not been pleaded by the landlord and, therefore, no order of eviction could be passed on his ejectment application. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that though it may be that in the ejectment application the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) were not specifically pleaded, yet there is the evidence on the record in the statement of the landlord himself to that effect and the same was never controverted by the tenant.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.