RAMESH KUMAR Vs. ADARSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order and judgment dated 29.11.2016, passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the order dated 08.08.2014, passed by the Rent Controller, allowing the ejectment petition, was set aside.

(2.) While praying for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority had erred in holding that the necessary ingredients as required under Section 13 (3) (a) (ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1949"?) were not pleaded in the ejectment petition and went on to hold that the petitioner/landlord had not given the detail of the property owned by his son for whom the bonafide was pleaded, whereas, no such ground was ever raised by the respondents/tenants in their reply and nor there was any pleading that the ingredients as required under the Act of 1949 were not pleaded in the ejectment petition qua the son and nor any suggestion to the said effect was put to him even in the cross examination. It is further contended that the Appellate Authority has also erred in holding that the shop was transferred in the name of his daughter only to make up a ground for ejectment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents however opposing the revision petition submitted that the landlord had appeared as AW-2 and admitted that he had another shop and he had given away one of the shop to his daughter and the same was done only to show that they did not have any other shop and the transaction to his daughter was a sham transaction and this fact is also evident from the fact that he is paying the house tax of another shop as also that he is continuing to pay the electric charges qua the shop, which has been transferred in the name of his daughter. The Appellate Authority while setting aside the findings recorded by the Rent Controller relied on the judgment in the case of Ajit Singh and another Vs. Jit Ram and another, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 390 as well as the judgment as rendered by this High Court in case of Rajiv Gupta Vs. Jiwan Ram, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 762, wherein the ejectment petition was held liable to be dismissed as the landlord had failed to mention that neither he nor his son were occupying any other building and nor they had got any shop vacated before filing of the ejectment petition observed in para 22 of the judgment dated 29.11.2016, as under:-