PARMESHWARI DEVI Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SADHU Ram landlord -respondent, filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the ejectment of Kanhiya Lal, tenant now deceased from his house Nos. 1207/7 and 1207/8, Bengali Mohalla, Ambala Cantt., on the grounds of non -payment of rent and personal requirement. The rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The Rent Controller also held that the claim of the petitioner -respondent that he required the house for his use and occupation was not bonafide.

(2.) ON appeal filed by Sadhu Ram, landlord -respondent, the learned, Appellate Authority, Ambala, accepted the appeal and ordered the ejectment of Parmeshwari Devi, wife of Kanhiya Lal deceased and others from the demised premises. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi, etc., have filed this civil revision against the order of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the landlord -respondent had not pleaded in his eviction application that he was not occupying any residential building in the urban area concerned and that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area. Since the landlord -respondent had to plead the ingredients of Sub -clause (b) and (c) of paragraph (1) of Section 13(3)(a) of the Act, his eviction application was not properly drafted. He had filed the ejectment application on 3rd December, 1971 and at that time the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shri Krishan Lal Seth v. Shrimati Pritam Kumar, (1961)63 P.L.R. 865, was to the effect that it was not necessary for the landlord to specifically mention in the ejectment application that he was not in occupation of any residential building in the same urban area in which the premises sought to be vacated was located and that such a building had not been vacated by him without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area. Therefore, it is proper that the landlord should be allowed to amend his petition in view of the decision in Banke Lal v. Saraswati Devi, (supra). This revision petition is therefore, accepted and the case is sent back to the Court of the Rent Controller with the direction that he will allow the landlord -respondent to amend his petition and to produce evidence in support of the contentions made by him. The costs of this petition will follow the events.