BANKE RAM Vs. SARASTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Full Bench is called upon to determine and decide the following question of law as referred to by Tewatia, J. (as he then was) in his reference order dated August 28, 1975:

(2.) AT this stage, the relevant provisions which need interpretation may be reproduced:

(3.) THE earliest decision having bearing on the matter in controversy is by bishan Narain, J. , in Civil Revn. No. 372 of 1966 (Lakhi Ram v. Piare Lal), decided on April 28, 1958 (Punj), wherein the application by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide need for personal occupation was dismissed by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The landlord did not make any allegation, relating to Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of the aforesaid provision, in his application. The tenant also did not make any reference regarding the same in his reply. No issue regarding the same was framed by the Rent Controller. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner in the revision petition was that the eviction application had been dismissed on a ground regarding which no issue had (been framed. This contention was upheld by Bishan Narain, J. , and it was held that no amount of evidence could be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. It was further held that it will be extremely unfair in the absence of a specific issue to non-suit the landlord. Thus, the revision petition was accepted and the case was remanded back after framing new issues with reference to sub-clauses (b) and (c) of the Act. In Krishan Lal Seth v. Pritam Kumari, (1961) 63 Pun LR 865, the Division Bench comprising of Mehar Singh and Mahajan, JJ. , after taking into consideration the abovementioned decision rendered by Bishan Narain, J. , came to the conclusion and held that it was not necessary to allege and plead anything referred to in sub-clauses (b) and (c) of the aforesaid provision. The ratio of the decision in krishan Lal Seth's case (supra) is the sole basis of one view of the question involved and is reproduced below in extenso: