The court allowed the landlord to file an amended application incorporating the ingredients mentioned in the Act and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the order of the Appellate Authority, Bhatinda dated 26th March, 1982.

2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/landlord gave the building i dispute on lease to Faqir Chand Respondent No. 1 on an annual rent of Rs. 1650/-. He made an application for ejectment of respondent No. 1 on the ground that respondent No. 1 had not paid the arrears of rent since 18th December, 1976, that respondent No. 1 had sublet a part of the building to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, that respondents No. 1 had effected material alternations in the building which had materially impaired its value and utility and that he required the building bona fide for his own use and occupation. The application was contested by the respondents who controverted the allegations of the applicant.

3. The Rent Controller held that the applicant did not plead all the ingredients mentioned in section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act), that he bona fide required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation, that the building had been sublet with the consent of the landlord and that there was no material alternations in the demised building effected by the respondents. He further held that the applicant had not stated that he did not vacate any other building after the coming into force of the Act. Consequently, he dismissed the application. On appeal, the appellate authority held that the Rent Controller had held that the ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act had not been pleaded in the application. On other matter it affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. However it did not go into the question as to whether the applicant required the premises bona fide for his personal use. In view of the aforesaid findings it dismissed the appeal. The landlord has come up in revision against the order of the appellate authority to this Court.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that it is true that all the ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) had not been pleaded in the application for ejectment but it has been held by this Court that if it is not done the application should be allowed to be amended and the matter should be gone into by the Court. We have given due consideration to the argument and find substance in it. Mr. Mittal has prayed that the applicant be allowed to file the amended petition incorporating the ingredients mentioned in section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. We allow the prayer. The amended application may be filed before the Rent Controller within one week from the date of appearance there. The respondent shall be entitled to file the written statement to the amended application and the Rent Controller shall decide the matter afresh after allowing the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. It is further agreed between the counsel that the Rent Controller shall also decide the other issues afresh after allowing the parties to lead fresh evidence.

5. Consequently we accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the appellate authority and Rent Controller and remand the case to the Rent Controller for deciding matter afresh after taking into considerations the observation made above. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent controller on 10th February, 1984. The petition shall be liable to pay Rs. 500/- as costs to the respondent. The amended petition may be filed within a week from the date of appearance as observed above before the Rent Controller.