The landlord cannot be non-suited merely for want of necessary pleadings as regards ingredients under the Rent Act if those have been pleaded in rejoinder and proved on record in the evidence.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. - The present revision petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner-tenant challenging the eviction order dated 03.02.2018 passed against him by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 10.08.2021.

2. Brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against petitioner-tenant qua tenanted premises comprised of two shops measuring 20 X 20 ft., forming part of property No.17-A, Narain Singh Park, Panipat. Eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent; bona fide necessity of the respondent as well as structural alterations having been made by the petitioner-tenant resulting into weakening of the tenanted premises. In response, the petitioner-tenant filed his written statement admitting the factum of tenancy besides tendering the arrears of rent before the learned Rent Controller. Further, the petitioner-tenant disputed the bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlord and also challenged the averment of having made any structural alterations in the tenanted premises.

3. The respondent-landlord filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the petitioner-tenant. The learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 03.02.2018, allowed the eviction petition holding that the tenanted premises was required by the respondent-landlord for his own bona fide need, though, the plea raised by landlord qua tenant having impaired the value of tenanted premises did not find favour with the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the eviction order dated 03.02.2018 the petitioner filed first appeal. However, the Appellate Authority vide its impugned judgment dated 10.08.2021, dismissed the same thereby confirming the eviction order passed against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide need of the respondent-landlord.

4. Challenging the eviction orders passed by the authorities below, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the respondent-landlord has failed to plead the basic necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in his eviction petition. He further submits that there has been concealment on the part of the respondent as regards he having been in occupation of one shop besides one another shop in occupation of other tenant, namely, Deepak. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even no particulars have been mentioned by the respondent-landlord in the entire petition giving details as regards his requirement and as such, no case was made out in his favour on this point. For the said purpose, he has specifically referred to para 4(b) of the eviction petition, besides the statement made by the respondent-landlord while appearing as PW-1.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner also made reference of case titled as Shankar Lal Vs. Madan Lal and others 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 139, so as to contend that neither the respondent-landlord pleaded the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of 1973 Act, in his rent petition nor even did he take any steps to prove the same in his evidence while appearing as PW-1 and it was only in his cross-examination, he was forced to admit the factum of owning the other shops forming part of property No.17-A falling in Khasra No.1308 Min Patti Insar, Narain Singh Park, Panipat, situated within the Municipal limits of Panipat. Paragraph No.77 and 78 of the aforesaid judgment as relied upon by the petitioner are reproduced as under:-

'77. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the pleadings in the rent petition as well as in the replication clearly shows, that the ingredients of Section 13 (3) (i)(b)&(c) have not been pleaded.

78. Even in the evidence the landlord/ respondent did not take steps to prove the pleading, but had to admit the