Application for eviction cannot be rejected merely on ground of lack of pleadings.

Tenant in H.R.C.O.P.No.137 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner herein.

2. Landlady claimed eviction of tenant on the ground that she requires scheduled building for her additional accommodation. Tenant is occupying the downstair portion of the building and landlady is occupying the first floor. Landlady claimed possession on the ground that she is not in a position to climb up in first floor in view of her pain in her knee and she is also an Asthamatic patient. Tenant is making use of the ground floor portion for the purpose of his tyre business and the smoke emanating therefrom has affected her health which requires constant medical attention. Landladys father who is 73 years old on the date of petition is also having chronic knee problem and he also requires constant medical attention. He is also advised not to climb up staircase. According to landlady, in view of their illness, they require better environment and space occupied by them is not sufficient. They require the scheduled building as additional accommodation for their own occupation. A notice was issued asking tenant to vacate the premises for which a reply was sent refusing to surrender vacant possession. Eviction petition was filed thereafter.

3. Inthe counter-statement filed by tenant, he alleged that the claim is not bona fide. According to him originally ground floor was let out to him for a sum of Rs.400 and the same has been now enhanced to Rs.1,320. He has invested huge amounts in business and he has earned very good reputation. He also contended that he will be put to great hardships if he is asked to vacate the building. He has also said that there is no change in the size of family of landlady and therefore the claim is not bona fide. He prayed for dismissal of eviction petition.

4. Rent Controller as per order dated 28. 1995 allowed the eviction petition. Trial court held that landladys physical condition is not good and she requires constant medical attention. It is further found that has been advised by her physician not to climb up staircase and if she climb staircase, the possibility of her condition is likely to get deteriorated. Evidence of P.W.2, Doctor who issued certificate Ex.A-1 was believed by the Rent Controller. It also held that landladys father was also ailing and he had to be admitted in eye hospital for treatment. Trial court held that landlady must be given more convenience and the space occupied by her is not sufficient to meet her requirement. Eviction was ordered. Rent Controller did not enter finding regarding relative hardships.

5. Against the order of Rent Controller, tenant filed M.A.No.19 of 1995 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. Appellate authority also confirmed that the claim is bona fide. Appellate authority also considered the question of relative hardship and held that tenant will not be put to any hardship since scheduled building is only an annex to his main business. Appellate Authority found that on the admission of tenant himself that his main business is in some other place and he can shift the business also to the main business. But at the same time it held that the health condition of landlady is such that she requires immediate medical attention and she will be put to great hardship if eviction is not ordered.

6. Theconcurrent findings of authorities below are assailed in this revision petition.

7. I heard the counsel on the both sides. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the application for eviction itself is not maintainable and the same is filed without any bona fides. It is also argued that subsequent events have not been taken into consideration by Rent Controller or by Appellate Authority. It was argued that there is no pleading by landlord about the relative hardships and absence of pleadings will entail the dismissal of eviction petition itself.

8. After hearing counsel on both sides