SOWARAN SINGH AND ANR. Vs. INDERJIT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of the order of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (III of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act), Gurdaspur, dated October 25, 1975, reversing the judgment and order of the Rent Controller and directing the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground that he had sublet the premises in dispute to his father and that the premises are required by one of the landlord-respondents for doing his own business. At the time of inducting petitioner No. 1 as tenant into the premises on the basis of a written Rent Deed on March 21, 1961, the premises were obviously vacant site, because they are referred to as such in the Rent Deed. The tenant-petitioner is stated to have made the compound wall and other constructions in the premises and started the business of fire-wood and fodder therein. In 1967 Hans Raj, the original owner of the premises who had let them to Sowaran Singh on March 21, 1961, sold the same to Inderjit and Raj Pal sons of Hira Lal, who are related to Hans Raj. After purchasing the property, the two new owners, the respondents before me, filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioners on various grounds. The two grounds which are now relevant related to alleged sub-letting of the premises by petitioner No. 1 to his father Wadhawa Singh and that the rented land was required by the respondents for occupation and use by one of them. The finding of the Rent Controller on both these points was in favour of the petitioners. The learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, the Appellate Authority under the Act, has in appeal preferred by the respondents against the decision of the Rent Controller, reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on both the points and directed the ejectment of the petitioners. Ejectment had been declined by the Rent Controller on the second ground on the finding that the premises were not rented land but a shop. I am inclined to agree with the reversal of that finding by the lower Appellate Authority wherein he has held that the premises were rented land within the meaning of the Act and the mere fact that the tenant had subsequently made some construction thereupon would not constitute the same into a shop. Mr. Nand Lal Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has, however, urged that notwithstanding the said finding, no order for ejectment on that ground be passed against the petitioner, because inspite of the definite plea taken up by the respondents in their petition for ejectment requisite under section 13(3)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, no evidence at all has been led by them in support of that plea. It is not disputed that in paragraph 4 (iii) of the application for eviction the respondents have stated as below

(2.) Ch. Roop Chand, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents, was asked by me to point out if there is any evidence on the record to show that any witness has supported the said pleas. Counsel is not able to point out any such evidence but submits that the aforesaid two allegations were not denied by the tenant in his written statement dated March 24, 1971 filed in reply to the application for ejectment. The tenant's reply to the above-quoted averment is in the following terms :-

(3.) There is no doubt that the tenant has labelled the entire allegation in sub-para (iii) of para 4 of the application for ejectment to be wrong and has denied the same. Notwithstanding such vague and general denial the tenant then proceeded to make specific denials of the different allegations contained in that sub-paragraph. He denied that one of the applicant-respondents required the property for his own occupation as alleged by him. He did not, however, specifically deny that the landlords had not occupied any such site or had not vacated any such site in Batala. In case he was really serious about this, he should normally have specifically denied those allegations or could have taken a specific plea about any particular site in the urban area in question being in the occupation of the respondents or any such site having been vacated by them in such urban area before filing the application for ejectment. Nor can I lose site of the fact that in the face of denial of all the allegations contained in paragraph 4 (iii) of the application for ejectment, and in view of the frame of the relevant issue of which the burden was placed on the landlord-respondents, it was for the landlords to prove both the ingredients as it has been settled by a Full Bench of this court in Banke Ram v. Smt. Saraswati Devi, 1977 1 ILR(P&H) 786, that in order to succeed on a ground like this the landlords must allege and prove both the ingredients referred to above. The landlords in this case have, no doubt, taken up the relevant plea in the requisite detail but have admittedly not proved the same. In view of the Full Bench decision, I would set aside the order of the Appellate Authority for eviction of the petitioners on the second ground referred to above, but instead of dismissing the petition send it back to the learned Rent Controller for allowing the landlord-respondents an opportunity to lead evidence in support of the two allegations referred to above and allow the tenant-petitioners an opportunity to rebut the same. I am unable to sustain the finding of the lower Appellate Authority about the tenant having sublet premises to his father. That finding is based on practically no evidence and is not binding on this Court.