BANKE RAM Vs. SARASTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent (hereinafter called the landlord though she is lady) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), for eviction of the tenant (now petitioner) on the ground that she needed the demised premises for her bonafide need. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. However, her appeal before the Appellate Authority met with success and the eviction order was passed. The same has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) This revision petition was argued in the first instance before Tewatia, J., on August 28, 1975, when a preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(b) and (c), were not complied with. As there were no requisite pleadings in the eviction petition, therefore, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In view of the conflict of decisions of this Court, the matter was referred to by the learned Judge to a larger Bench. The question of law was then decided by a Full Bench on December 17, 1976, in which it was held that it was imperative for a landlord to plead the ingredients of the above-mentioned two sub-clauses.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, referred to above, the revision petition may be allowed and the eviction petition dismissed as the essential ingredients, mentioned above, were not pleaded in the eviction petition. A perusal of the eviction petition shows that in paragraph 3(b) of the petition, it was pleaded that the landlord bonafide required the premises in dispute, for her own occupation. She had only one small room in her possession, which was not sufficient for her purpose. To this, the reply of the petitioner in his written statement was that the landlord did not require the demised premises for her own use and occupation and that she was already in possession of sufficient suitable premises in which she was residing for the last more than 30 years. It was also averred that she was also in possession of the ground floor of the demised premises as of her own right which was often visited by her and she stayed there along with a friend of her, Shrimati Parkash Wanti.