The pleading of essential ingredients under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act is not a strict requirement, and evidence regarding essential ingredients can be considered even in the absence of pleadings.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - This is a civil revision that has been filed by the petitionerstenants seeking to challenge the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the Rent Controller whereby, the petition of the respondent-landlady was allowed on the ground of bona fide personal necessity, as well as the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants was dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against the petitioners herein for their ejectment on the grounds that the petitioners are regular defaulters in making the payment of rent and never paid the rent in time. It was also claimed by the respondent that she required the tenanted premises for the need of herself and her husband to start their business of boutique, to design and sell the readymade ladies and gents garments. The respondent further averred that the tenanted premises is more suitable for the business of boutique and she has got vacated the adjoining shop in order to merge the same with the tenanted premises. It was submitted that the space of both the shops would be sufficient and suitable for the proper running of the boutique business.

3. The petition was contested by the petitioners by filing their written statement, in which apart from taking the preliminary objections, it was submitted that no rent note was executed between the parties, as alleged by the respondent. It was averred that the petitioners gave a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- as security amount (Pagri). The rate of rent is Rs. 4000/- per month, which includes any house tax or any other cess or tax and the petitioners are not liable to pay any other amount. It was alleged that the respondent has not disclosed the true facts to the court that she has received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- through two cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each, as such, they have received more amount from the petitioners, which has been claimed as lump sum as Rs. 49,490/-. Remaining averments of the petition were denied.

4. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the evidence was led by both the parties. On appreciating the evidence, the Rent Controller has held that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 4000/- per month and the respondent was directed to refund the excess rent paid by the petitioners @ Rs. 5500/- per month pursuant to the provisional order of assessment of rent, while holding that under these circumstances, the ground of non-payment of rent is not available with the respondent. The Rent Controller has further held that the tenanted premises is required by the respondent herein for her bona fide necessity and directed the petitioners herein to hand over the vacant possession within a period of two months. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller were affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. Now the orders passed by both the courts below have been assailed in this civil revision.

5. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-tenants argues that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on issues No.1 and 3 are erroneous and the same have been recorded without discussing the evidence produced by the petitioners. It is also contended that similarly findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in para 16 and 17 of the judgment are erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside. It is argued that the ingredients of Section 13 of the Act are necessary to be pleaded and in the absence thereof, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the respondent was having vacant portion of basement of the building in which tenanted premises is situated and this fact was not disclosed by the respondent in her petition and site plan, thus, she has concealed material facts from the court, but both the courts below have erroneously hel