Substantive compliance with pleading requirements and limited scope of interference in revision petitions under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

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 deposition of Sh. Ashwani Kumar (cousin of the landlord), who has been examined by the tenant as RW-2, the learned counsel submits that one shop of the landlord is lying vacant and the landlord can occupy the same.

4. On the other hand, the landlord, while drawing the attention of the Court to para 5(iii) of the eviction petition, contends that the necessary averments were specifically made in the eviction petition. He submits that the deposition of Sh. Ashwani Kumar has been disbelieved by the Courts below and in the absence of corroborative evidence, the same cannot be relied upon.

5. For better appreciation of the arguments, it is necessary to reproduce the essential requirements under the Act:-

'13(1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section or in the pursuance of an order made under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, as subsequently amended.

(2)

* * *

* * * *

(3)(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession

(i) In the case of a building, if,-

(a) he requires it for his own occupation

(b) he is not occupying another building in the urban area concerned; and

(c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area'.

6. Note: Section 13(3)(a) in clause (i) and (b), the word residential has been declared unconstitutional in Harbila:s RaiBansal Vs.The State ofPunjab andAnr., 1996(1) SCC1.

7. It is evident that the landlord can apply to the Rent Controller for an order of eviction of tenant, if the landlord requires it for his own occupation and he is not occupying another building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated any such building without sufficient cause, after the commencement of the Act, in the said area. It may be noted here that there is no provision for employing a particular statutory language while filing the petition. The landlord, while filing the petition, has asserted as under:-

'That the Petitioner required the premises in dispute for his personal and bonafide needs. The Petitioner is unemployed and is not doing any business in these days nor is in possession of any other suitable Shop, nor available to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is not in occupation any other premises suitable and has also not vacated the same after the passing of the E.P.U.R.R. Act. Earlier the rent was increased as the Petitioner was residing out of India i.e. in Gulf Country and for the said reason the rent was increased now the Petitioner has no intention to increase