ANIL KSHETARPAL
Satpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Lal Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The petitioner herein is a tenant who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the landlord. The premises in dispute is a shop located at Kothi Road, Nawanshahr, Punjab.
2. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook as well as the record.
3. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner contends that the petition is liable to be dismissed as the landlord has failed to plead the necessary ingredients under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the eviction petition. While relying upon a judgment passed by a Full Bench of this Court in Bank.eRamVsL Shrimati SarasvatiDevi1977(1)RCR(Rent) 595, he contends that the landlord has mischievously added the word 'suitable' in order to defeat the very purpose of the requirements. He further contends that in the absence of pleadings, the evidence cannot be considered, therefore the judgments passed by the Courts below are perverse. While referring to the dep
Substantive compliance with pleading requirements and limited scope of interference in revision petitions under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that ambiguity in pleadings regarding necessary ingredients, if made good in the evidence, is a sufficient compliance of the statutory requirement.
Tenants cannot contest eviction on grounds of non-pleaded necessary ingredients if not raised earlier, preserving the landlord's rights and addressing bona fide needs.
The sufficiency of pleadings and evidence in establishing bonafide necessity under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, and the authority of the Appellate Authority to re-appreciate evidence.
The landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal necessity must not be in occupation of any other property within the same urban area, as per Section 13 of the Act.
The landlord's bona fide need for the demised premises and the tenant's liability to pay rent were crucial in determining the outcome of the case.
The landlord's requirement for eviction should be based on occupation rather than ownership of other properties within the same municipal limits.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.