The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for landlords to plead specific facts and demonstrate bona fide necessity for eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. This is a tenants petition directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Karnal dated 30.7.2010 vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises.

2. The respondent-landlord preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of bona fide necessity, non-payment of rent and creating nuisance. The petitioner denied all the averments made in the petition and controverted the allegations that he hlad not paid the rent and that he is creating nuisance.

3. The Rent Controller after framing the following issues appraised the entire evidence before it and concluded that the petition was liable to be rejected and ordered accordingly:-

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in the petition?OPP

2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition? OPR

3. Whether the petition has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPR

4. Relief.

4. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and ordered the eviction of the petitioner which has resulted in filing of the instant revision petition wherein the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent landlord failed to plead the requisites of Section 13 of the Act. He referred to the three ingredients which are specifically required to be pleaded by a landlord as enshrined in the statute. He contended that since the respondent-landlord merely pleaded two of the essential ingredients such as his own personal need and that he had not vacated any house in the municipal area where the demised premises is situated, but failed to piead that he was not occupying any other premises in the area, therefore the petition deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. He relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported as Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi 1 (1977)79 PLR 113 (FB), wherein in para 9 of the judgment it has been observed as follows :-

"17. One of the main objects of the Act is to protect the tenant from the caprice and whim of the landlord to eject him without any valid and sufficient reason. It has been specifically provided under section 13(1) that a tenant will not be ejected except in accordance with the conditions laid down in sub-sections (2) and (3). The landlord has been injuncted from evicting the tenant even on the ground of the need of his own occupation unless two other conditions provided in sub-clauses (b) and (c) are also fulfilled. The fulfilment of the conditions is a prerequisite for any order of ejectment. If this objective is to be achieved it is essential that both landlord and tenant must state all the facts specifically and expressly in their pleadings before they enter on evidence. In its absence, the proceedings will be a fertile source of objections that the tenant was taken by surprise because the landlord had not made specific averment in his pleadings and the objection by the landlord that the tenant had not raised specific objection in his reply. In a large number of cases, it has been seen that after a long time, the Appellate Authority or the High Court are required to deal with the question whether amendment of the pleadings by the landlord should be allowed or not. This results in unnecessary prolonged litigation and avoidable burden of expenditure consequent thereto. Such a course is neither in the interest of the landlord nor the tenant. The interest of speedy justice makes it imperative that both the landlord and the tenant must be absolutely clear in their minds from their respective pleadings as to what case is required to be proved by the landlord and rebutted by the tenant. Viewed from any angle, there is no escape from the conclusion that the landlord must make s