LAWS(P&H)-1979-2-31

O.P. DEWAN Vs. D.C. SAHAI

Decided On February 05, 1979
O P DEWAN Appellant
V/S
D C SAHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner claims that his daughter has been recently transferred to the Kanya Maha Vidyala, Jullundur, as a Lecturer and for that reason he needs the house in dispute for his personal occupation. The learned Courts below have non-suited him on the ground that since his earlier attempts to increase as the rent have failed; his application on the ground of personal necessity was not a bona fide one. In this court a controversy was raised whether the daughter of the petitioner was married or not. The parties wished to file affidavits on this point. Though the petitioner has filed an affidavit of his own as also an affidavit of his daughter, but no affidavit on this point is forthcoming from the side of the respondent. Whatsoever might be the past history of the case, if an unmarried daughter of the petitioner holding the post of a Lecturer has been able to seek appointment at Jullundur, the circumstances arising out of this situation are certainly relevant for considering whether the petitioner needs this house for his personal use or not. On behalf of the respondent, Mr. Jain has drawn my attention to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi,1977 1 RCJ 250. Therein a Full Bench of this Court has laid down that it was incumbent on a landlord, who seeks ejectment of his tenant on the ground of personal necessity, to plead in the petition the following three points:-

(2.) Admittedly, in the instant case all the three ingredients afore-mentioned have not been pleaded by the petitioner in his petition.

(3.) Mr. Gopi Chand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however drawn my attention to a latter Single Bench decision of this Court in Kesho Ram v. Jagan, 1977 1 RCJ 770. In that case, O- Chinnappa Reddy, J. (as the learned Judge then was) observed that the rule regarding pleadings applied with equal vigour to the respondent in an ejectment case also and if such a respondent did not raise such a plea about the insufficiency of pleadings at the earlier stage, the High Court might not allow him to raise such a plea in revisional proceedings. The learned Judge also observed as under :