The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence and adhering to the specifics of the original petition in landlord-tenant disputes.

Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, J.

1. Petitioner landlady sought the ejectment of the respondent tenant. The Rent Controller dismissed her application vide order dated 27th of May, 1972. Appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 1st September, 1973. In this revision petition the orders of the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority are sought to be impugned. The only ground pressed before the Appellate Authority in appeal was that the tender of the rent was short by few naya paisa as the tenant had failed to tender the interest on a sum of Rs. 4.05 paise which amount payable as house-tax. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on the record to show that the landlady had paid the house-tax earlier and that she as entitled to interest on the amount of house-tax. He further came to the conclusion in view of this no interest of Rs. 3.05 paise could be claimed by the landlady. I have no reason to differ from this finding. Neither it could be shown to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she was entitled to the interest on the amount of Rs. 4.05 paise as a matter of law, nor there is any evidence to show that any such tax was paid by the landlady on which she could claim any interest even if she was entitled to claim it.

2. The only other argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tender of rent was short by a sum of Rs. 45 as the rent payable for the month of October, 1970, which had not been tendered. This contention is clearly without any merit. In paragraph 3(i) of the ejectment petition the petitioner herself claimed rent for the months of July, August and September, 1970. No such claim was made in the petition itself nor the same could be made as I find that the petition for ejectment was filed on 15th October, 1970, on which date the rent which was payable in advance according to the rent note had not even become due as the same could become due on the 15th of the month of October, 1970. In any case no claim was made for the payment of rent for October, 1970, in the petition and the petitioner cannot be allowed to travel beyond her pleadings. No other point has been urged. There is no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. Since there is no opposition on behalf of the respondent, therefore, there will be no order as to costs.