MALUK DASS Vs. SMT. PARWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will deal with C.R. No. 1174 and 1175 of 1979. Each of them is against the common landlord who has successfully obtained an order of ejectment against the tenants from the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, which has been maintained on appeal by the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon. For facility of deal, facts forthcoming on the file of C.R. No. 1174 of 1979 may be taken.

(2.) Smt. Parwati Devi is the landlord. She filed application for ejectment of the petitioner Maluk Dass under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). The grounds urged were that the tenant had not paid upto date arrears of rent and that the landlord required the house for her own use and occupation because the present accommodation in the same building with her was insufficient for her and her family members. The only contentions issue which survives to be dealt within this petition is about the requirement of the landlord of the premises in dispute for the use and occupation of herself and her family members. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the requirement of the petitioner is existent and is bonafide. The tenant seeks to challenge the order of eviction in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that there was a patent illegality on the fact of the record inasmuch as the landlord's petition is deficient of necessary pleadings as to attract the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and so is the evidence. It is pointed out that the existence of pleadings to that effect and proof to support that pleadings was essential. Reliance was placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar,1957 59 PunLR 83 and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 1 RCR(Rent) 595 in which it has been held that the ingredients of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) in Sub-section 13(a)(i) and (ii) Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, have to be both pleaded and proved by the landlord in order to succeed on the ground of personal necessity. It is urged that the provisions of the aforesaid Act are akin and similar to Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the present Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. A recent decision of the Suprme Court in Onkar Nath vs. Ved Vyas, 1980 1 RCR(Rent) 304was also cited to reinforce that contention. The learned counsel for he respondent-landlord did not dispute this proposition of law and defended the case of his client by maintaining that the requisite pleating was there and so was the evidence. He pointed out that the petitioner did not specifically taken up this plea about the supported absence of proof of the requirement before the Appellate Authority. Since this Court exercises powers under Section 15(5) of the Act for purposes of satisfying as to the legality or property of any order or proceeding, it was found proper that the pleadings and evidence on that point be read and now it is proper to incorporate them here as well.