SUNIL KUMAR Vs. GURJIT KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition against the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlady.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent-landlady has not pleaded three ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and that she is owner of six other shops in the same area which will be presumed to have been occupied by her. Counsel has contended that she has not denied in her cross-examination that other shops in the corner in Adarsh Nagar, Malout are owned by her family members. He has also argued that the respondent-landlady had filed an application for amendment of the ejectment petition at appellate stage seeking to plead the necessary three ingredients but said application was dismissed by the Appellate Authority observing that all the ingredients had been pleaded.

(3.) Counsel has inter-alia argued that the onus lies on the land-lady to plead and prove the necessary ingredients. He has also argued that if the amendment is allowed, it relates back to the date of filing of ejectment petition. In support of his contentions, counsel relies on the judgments in Subhash v. Yashpal, 2014 (1) PLR 506 and Mistri Piara Lal v. Surinder Nath, 2014 (1) RCR (Rent) 223. It is contended that had the amendment been allowed, the land-lady could be said to have pleaded the ingredients from the inception but on account of application having been dismissed, it will be presumed that the necessary ingredients have neither been pleaded nor proved.