B S KAMTHANIA Vs. HARDIAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated 13th December, 1975, whereby he confirmed the order of the Rent Controller, directing the ejectment of the petitioner.

(2.) On 8th March. 1973, an application for ejectment of the tenant petitioner was filed by the landlady-respondent from the premises in dispute, i.e. House No. 89, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the personal need of the landlady. This petition was contested by the tenant- petitioner and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlady sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of her personal necessity, the ejectment, if at all, could be ordered on that ground alone. The ground which was never taken by the landlady herself in her application for ejectment, i. e. changing the user of the building, could not be made a ground against him at the appellate stage. In other words, according to him, it is not permissible to make out a new ground of ejectment at the appellate stage when no such plea was taken in the ejectment application itself. For that the learned counsel relied upon Atma Ram and others v. Kanwar Mohinder Singh and others, 1976 RCJ 336. The proposition of law is well settled and cannot be disputed. A ground not taken in the application for ejectment cannot be made a ground for ejectment either before the Rent Controller or at the appellate stage. Admittedly, change of user was never pleaded in this case by the respondent in her application.