HARI KISHAN Vs. SHANKAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Hari Kishan tenant, against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur dated January 1, 1975.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Hari Kishan was a tenant under Shanker Das -landlord in the house in dispute at a monthly Rent of Rs. 12/ -. The landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the ground that he required the property for his own use and occupation. The application was contested by the tenant. The Rent Controller held that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation and consequently allowed the application. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. Jullundur, who affirmed judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. He has come up to revision against the order of the Appellate Authority to this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the landlord did not plead in the Revision Petition all the ingredients mentioned in Sec. 13(3)(a) (i) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. According to him, it was incumbent upon him to plead and prove the aforesaid ingredients. He vehemently argues that in the circumstances, his application for ejectment was liable to be dismissed. Mr. P.P. Pandit, learned Counsel for the Respondent has admitted that the plea was not taken in the petition. According to him, the matter was settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Banke Ram v/s. Shrimati Sarasi Devi : (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112, that all the ingredients had to be pleaded and proved. He further urges that prior to that, this matter had not been settled and consequently the ingredients of the Sec. had not been pleaded. He requests that he may be allowed to amend the application for ejectment and case be remanded for that purpose. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find that the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is reasonable. The application for ejectment was filed as far back at April. 1972 The revision petition is pending in this Court since 1975. In the circumstances. I feel that it will not be proper to put the applicant to unnecessary expenses of filling another application before the Rent Controller. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently urged that in Onker Nath v/s. Ved Vyas, 1979 (2) R.L.R. 226 the Supreme Court had directed the landlord to file a fresh application. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has, however, fairly admitted that the landlord in that case was a lawyer. It appears that the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact directed him to file a fresh application.