HARI KISHAN UDASI Vs. JAWALA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before me is the landlord of a residential building situated in Hissar town and occupied by the respondent as a tenant under him. The application giving rise to this petition prayed for ejectment of the respondent on various grounds of which only one is now material and that is that the building in dispute was bona fide required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation. That ground found favour with the learned Controller, who passed an order of eviction against the respondent, but the Appellate Authority took a different view and reversed the finding of the learned Controller with the result that the landlord's prayer for ejectment failed so that he has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) In the application made by him to the Controller the ground above mentioned is stated thus in paragraph 3(b) :

(3.) Nothing else is stated in connection with the alleged requirement of the landlord whose duty it was to make all the allegations of fact which he was called upon to prove under the law before the eviction of the respondent could be ordered. Those allegations are decipherable from the relevant portion of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) by which this case is governed. That portion states :