K.Kannan, J. (Oral);—

1. All the three revision petitions pertain to the same premises and they have been brought together with the consent of both counsel. The subject matter in Civil Revision No.756 of 1996 has been originally instituted at the instance of the Punjab Khadi Mandal and after the formation of Kashetariya Punjab Khadi Mandal, it was also added as a party. This petition for eviction was dismissed on a technical ground that the requirement of a landlord of a non-residential purpose was impermissible. The subsequent petition came to be filed by Kashetariya Punjab Khadi Mandal which is the subject of petition in Civil Revision No.1777 of 1999. The petition for eviction by the Kashetariya Mandal was for the same purpose of personal need when they were contending that the portion of SCF 9 which was in the occupation of tenants was also required, since the existing remaining portion of the property in the hands of the landlord was not sufficient. The third revision petition was at the instance of the tenants in Civil Revision No.5547 of 1999 in so far as the tenants' contention, which was rejected, that the subsequent petition filed by the landlord was not maintainable, being barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

2. There is no contest between the parties that the petition for eviction could not have been thrown out only on the ground that the personal requirement could not be urged in respect of tenancy for commercial purpose. The issue that would fall for consideration would only be the point that has been taken which is the subject of revision in Civil Revision No.1777 of 1999, namely, where the landlord had established the bona fides of his requirement. The appellate authority had observed, inter alia, that the petitioner had not brought out the ingredients of Section 13 by a disclosure of the existence of other building which the landlord was in possession of, at the time when eviction was sought in the same town. This reasoning was on the admitted fact that the landlord owned the shop in SCF No.8 which had not been specifically spelt out in the petition as filed. The learned counsel for the landlord would contend that there is no specific proforma of pleading which the law spells out and by a conjoint reading of the entire body of the petition and the rejoinder filed by the landlord, it would be evident that the landlord had not concealed in the existence of other shop in SCF No.8 The counsel would refer to the decision of this Court in Banwari Lal Versus Ram Parkash and another-(2009)2 RCR (Rent) 160 where the Court held that though the ingredients of Section 13(3) themselves are mandatory in nature, but there is no specific form of pleading which was required to be given. The Court also held that it was always open to the parties to plead the ingredients of Section 13 (3) of the Act in any form given under the Act.

3. Section 13(3) in so far as it refers to the bona fide requirement of the landlord would spell out the need in the following words:-

“13(3)(a)(2)(ii)-In the case of non-residential building or rented land, if (a) he requires it for his own use; (b) he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land; and (c) he has not vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned.”

The above provision stipulates three aspects to be established. The first ingredient, as applied to this case is the requirement of the landlord that the existing premises were not sufficient and they had to store their articles in the godown at Kharar. The second ingredient is that he was not occupying in the urban area concerned of any other building. In this case, it is not specifically stated that the Shop No.8 was in their occupation. But the counsel for the petitioner points out from the pleadings that worth of the shop in the possession of the tenants was described as Shop No.8

Click Here to Read the rest of this document