The landlord must plead the specific ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in the eviction petition, and if no prejudice is caused to the tenant due to non-pleading of the ingredients, the petition cannot be rejected.

Gurmit Ram, J.

This revision is preferred by the petitioner-Ganesh Kumar, who was tenant before the learned Rent Controller against the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Mukerian vide which the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short "the Act") for the ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop was accepted and the judgment dated 01.11.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur vide which the appeal preferred against the abovesaid order of the learned Rent Controller was dismissed.

2. The case of the respondent herein (landlord) before the learned Rent Controller in brief was that petitioner herein is the tenant in the demised shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. There exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties qua the demised shop. Respondent herein (landlord) is unemployed having no source of income to support himself and his family members after the death of his father. Now he is in bona fide need and necessity of demised shop, since he is planning to start his own electrical business in the demised shop and hence was the instant petition.

3. Upon notice, respondent appeared and filed his reply taking preliminary objections that respondent herein (landlord) has not come to the Court with clean hands and this petition is not maintainable.

4. On merits, it was denied that the respondent herein (landlord) required the demised shop for starting his own electrical business in it. It was further his case that respondent herein (landlord) has no experience/knowledge of electrical business. Then it was also his plea that this petition has been filed with the ulterior motive for renting out the demised shop on higher rent. Rest of the averments were also denied by the petitioner herein (tenant).

5. The learned Rent Controller after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and going through the record as well accepted this petition whereby ordering the eviction of the petitioner herein (tenant) from the demised shop vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2012.

6. Then the petitioner herein (tenant) preferred an appeal against this order before the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 01.11.2014 by the said authority.

7. Feeling aggrieved from abovesaid both the impugned order and judgment passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner (tenant) has come up before this Court by way of instant revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for both the parties were heard. Record of both the Courts below was requisitioned and perused.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the impugned order and judgment passed by both the Courts below are not tenable, the same being without proper appreciation of the pleadings of the parties as well as the law applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In this regard, it is his specific contention that ingredients as envisaged in Sub- Clause (b) & (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) are not mentioned in this ejectment petition and as such it was liable to be rejected on this very legal point. Both the Courts below have failed to take judicious notice of the same while passing the impugned order as well as judgment and on this ground also, the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

10. In support of his above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited some case laws which are detailed as under :-

(i) Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 595. In this case law, the question which was referred to be answered before the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court was :-

"....as to whether a landlord applying for the eviction of his tenant on the ground contained in sub paragraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph (i) of Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), i.e., for his own use and occupation, has not to specifically plead in his application the con