PYARE LAL Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Pyare Lal tenant against the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated May 6, 1974.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Hari Singh Nair is the owner of the house in dispute. He give in on lease to Pyare Lal, the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The landlord filed an application for ejectment against the tenant on the ground that he required the property for his own use and occupation as he had retired from service. The learned rent controller came to the conclusion that the landlord required the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. He, therefore, passed an order of ejectment. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur. Before him two contentions were raised, first, that the landlord had not pleaded in the petition all the ingredients given in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), and secondly that, he did not require the house bonafide for his own use and occupation. The learned Appellate Authority rejected the contentions of the appellate and dismissed the appeal. The tenant has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, to this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was incumbent on the landlord to plead all the ingredients mentioned in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act and therefore, the application requires amendment, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel. I have gone through the pleadings and find that the ingredients mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the act have not been pleaded in the petition, which, it was necessary for him to do (See Sant Singh v. Attar Singh and others,1978 2 ARC 285. The revision has been pending here for the last about five years. It will not be proper to accept it and dismiss the application for ejectment on this ground. The other course open is that the landlord may be asked to amend the petition, and lead evidence on the other two ingredients. Nobody represents the landlord in the revision petition in this Court, I, however, deem it proper that landlord may be allowed to amend the petition, and lead evidence on the other two ingredients.