The lack of specific pleadings regarding the statutory grounds for eviction did not prejudice the tenant's case since the tenant was aware of the real matter in issue and had joined in issue over the same.

1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1985, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam), is the revision petitioner.

2. Though eviction was sought on various grounds by the respondent herein, the only ground that now survives is, the claim for eviction on the ground of wilful default, and also the ground that the building is required for the bona fide own occupation of the respondent.

3. In the petition for eviction, regarding the default in payment of rent, the landlord has stated in paragraph 4 thus:—

“The respondent is a tenant of the petition mentioned premises. He was inducted into possession of the petition mentioned premises as a tenant, as per the Rent deed dated 1-5-1983, the agreed rent being Rs. 130/- per month. As per the terms of the agreement, the respondent has to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 130/- on the first of every succeeding month without fail. But the respondent has not paid rents for October, November and December, 1983 and January to December 1984 (i.e.,) for a total period of 15 months. Thus, he has committed wilful default in payment of rent. He has to pay in all Rs. 1,950/- towards arrears, i.e., rent for 15 months as aforesaid. A registered notice (Ex. A-2) was sent on 24.8.1984, demanding the respondent to vacate the petition mentioned property and hand over vacant possession of the same, on the ground of wilful default, among other grounds. It was ackno wledged by the respondent on 27.8.1984. (Ex. A-4). Second notice was sent on 13.9.84. But the respondent has neither paid the rent, nor has he sent any reply. Two months have elapsed after service of notice. Hence the respondent is to be evicted on the ground of wilful default.”

In regard to the claim on the ground of requirement of the building bona fide for own occupation of the landlord, paragraph 7 of the petition says thus:—

“The petitioner and his son Dr. Ashok Kumar are practising as dental surgeons, separately. The petitioner intends to start a separate clinic and medical shop in the petition premises for the benefit of his son. Running a pharmacy is a necessary adjunct for the profession. Thus, the petitioner requires the petition premises for his own use and occupation, for running a pharmacy and for starting a separate clinic for his son. The shop is ideally suited for running a medical shop.”

4. The above allegations are answered in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter. It is stated therein that the rent is not payable by month, but the agreement is to pay rent once in a year. He further said that the rental arrangement began long before, i.e., in 1968, and the original rent was only Rs. 25/- and the same was enhanced to Rs. 130/-. He said that from 1979 onwards, the monthly rent was agreed to be paid only every year. In paragraph 5 of the counter, he gave details of certain payments which, according to him, will show that there is a contract between the parties to pay and receive the amount only once a year, and that too after Deepavali Holidays. Regarding the bona fide requirement for own use, the same is answered in the counter. He said that the petitioner (landlord) is in possession of more that 25 buildings, and the claim put forward by the landlord is lacking in good faith. Ultimately, the tenant prays for dismissal of the eviction petition.

5. Both the Authorities below have held that the requirement of the petition mentioned building for own use and occupation is bona fide. and have further held that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent.

6. Let me first consider whether the landlord needs the building for his own occupation.

7. The main contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner (tenant) is that the pleading in paragraph 7 of the petition in this case is lacking in details, and the statutory grounds enabling the petitioner to seek eviction are not put forward, and, therefore, for that reason itself, the eviction petition has to be rejected. For the said purpose, lea