PANNA LAL Vs. SHRI DEVJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Panna Lal, against the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, on October 15, 1973.

(2.) Briefly the case of Devjit, landlord, was that Panna Lal had been a tenant under Jagdish Chand in respect of the whole of the house for a period of about twenty years before the filing of the application for ejectment on March 16, 1965. An application for fair rent was made and Rs. 10.83 per month had been fixed as fair rent in respect of the whole of the house. Jagdish Chand, the original owner, sold a major portion of the house to Devjit for an amount of Rs. 11,000/-. He also sold the remaining portion of the house to Devjit's brother's wife. The landlord claimed ejectment of Panna lal, tenant, on the ground that he had not paid the rent after December 7, 1964 and that he wanted the house for his own use and occupation. The tenant contested the application and denied allegations of the landlord. He, however, paid the rent on the first date of hearing and consequently, jthe ground for non payment of rent was given up by the landlord. The tenant denied that the landlord required the house for his own use and occupation bonafide. He also took the plea that since the application had been filed for partial ejectment, it was, therefore, not maintainable. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that the landlord has not pleaded all the ingredients as given in section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), namely, that the landlord requires the building for his own use and occupation, that he is not keeping another residential building in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area, in the application for ejectment. He submits that it was necessary for the landlord to have pleaded and proved all the aforesaid ingredients and as he failed to do so, his application for ejectment was liable to be dismissed on this grounds alone.