DURGA PARSHAD Vs. HAR NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, dated April 3, 1975. The only objection raised is that the ingredients of Section 13(3) (a) (iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act have not been pleaded. In other words, the argument is that it has not been averred in the petition that he is not in possession of any other accommodation for his residence nor has he vacated such accommodation. Though, this matter was not taken in either of the two Courts below but according to a recent Full Bench decision in Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasri Devi, (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112, the landlord has to plead and prove these ingredients which obviously means that in the absence of such pleadings, the application must fail. Similar view was taken by R.N. Mittal, J., in Charan Dass Kirpal Singh, (1977) 79 P.L.R. 16 (S.N.).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relied on a decision in Kesho Ram v. Jagan (deceased) represented by his L.R's, (1977) 1 R.C.J. 770, where in it was held that the Full Bench never stated that the absence of the pleadings of the said ingredients would necessarily result in the dismissal of the application. I am unable to appreciate this view taken by the learned Judge because the decision of the Full Bench necessarily implies that if the necessary ingredients are not pleaded the application cannot proceed.