RAJ KUMAR Vs. MUNI LAL VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application for ejectment filed by the respondent landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller. He had urged three grounds before the Rent Controller. All of them were decided against him by the Rent Controller. He preferred an appeal to the appellate authority before whom the only ground urged was that he required it for his own occupation. This ground was upheld by the appellate authority and eviction of the tenant was ordered. The tenant preferred a revision petition to this Court and my brother R. N. Mittal, J. accepted the revision on the ground that the ingredients of section 13(3) (a) (i) were not pleaded and proved. He, however, decided to give a fresh opportunity to the landlord to amend his petition and lead evidence on this question. The matter was, therefore, remanded to the Rent Controller for this purpose. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent filed an application for amendment and to lead evidence on other issues which had already become final. The Rent Controller decided to allow him to do so. The tenant has come in revision to this court. The Rent Controller was clearly wrong in thinking that the entire matter was once again open before him. The only question which he was required to consider by the order of my brother R. N. Mittal, J. was about the requirement of the building by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The remand was restricted to that question. The amendment, if any, may be allowed by the Rent Controller only to that extent. The parties may also be allowed to lead evidence on that question only. The Civil Revision is allowed. The Rent Controller will decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law and the observations in this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 4th April, 1971. No casts.