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.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

By way of the present Civil Revision challenge has been made to the judgments dated 25.09.2014 and 04.05.2014 passed by the Courts/ Authorities below whereby an eviction petition filed at the instance of petitioner-landlord has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, claiming himself to be the landlord of the demised premises i.e. H. No. 1422, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh, the petitioner filed an eviction petition qua the ground floor and the top floor against the respondents on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as personal necessity as he wanted to shift to Chandigarh from village Ballo Majra for better educational convenience of his children. The eviction petition, at the hands of the respondents, was opposed while disputing the facts stated in the eviction petition.

3. The Rent Controller vide judgment dated 25.09.2014 dismissed the eviction petition holding that neither the ingredients of Section 13 (3)(a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ( for short "the Act of 1949") were pleaded therein, nor even a joint petition qua two separate tenants of ground floor and top floor was maintainable. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed first appeal, but the same was also dismissed for want of having not pleaded the mandatory ingredients of Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the of Act, 1949 though the plea of joint eviction petition at the instance of petitioner was answered in his favour while recorded that on account of top floor having been vacated during pendency of proceedings before Rent Controller. The petition survived only qua the ground floor and thus was maintainable.

4. Despite notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, accordingly, the petitioner only has been heard through his counsel.

5. Assailing the aforesaid judgments of the Court below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire written statement filed at the instance of the tenant-respondent, no objection as regards the non-mentioning of basic ingredients of Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the 1949 Act, was ever raised and, thus, the petitioner could not have been non-suited on this account. In this regard, he also places reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. Rakesh Kumar Bhakoo and another, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 713. Relevant para no. 9 thereof is reproduced hereunder :

"A perusal of the written statement shows that no such objections in respect of lack of pleadings of necessary ingredients have been raised. The parties have understood the case and led evidence. It has been found that the landlord satisfied the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 13 of the Act to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. .......

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the facts of the present case wherein the petitioner intended to shift to Chandigarh to occupy the demised premises for the convenience and better education of his children, bona fide need was duly established.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book as well as the records of the Court below.

8. A perusal of the eviction petition shows that though the basic necessary ingredients of Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the 1949 Act were not pleaded therein to the extent that the petitioner was not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and did not vacate such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act, in the same urban area, yet, no specific objection to this extent was ever raised in the written statement filed at the instance of respondents. In