JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

1. Present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment dated 08.02.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana; thereby reversing the judgment/order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jagraon.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered Trust. Basant Shah is authorised and nominated to manage the property of the trust. On 9.5.1983, the demised premises in the ownership of the petitioner, and as described in the petition were taken on rent by the respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.60. Vide Agreement dated 03.01.1992 same was enhanced to Rs.80/-. Thereafter, petitioner had filed Eviction Petition dated Nil (Annexure P-1) under Section 13 of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act seeking ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises on the following grounds: -

a) Respondents have failed to pay the arrears of rent since July 1994;

b) The property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; and

c) That the premises are required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation for constructing temples and rooms for stay of Sadhu and religious persons and other functions for the benefit of the locality.

3. Upon notice, respondents had appeared and filed written statement to the Rent Petition admitting therein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the ld. Rent Controller vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 had allowed the Rent Petition and directed the respondents to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of order. Against the said order, the respondents filed Rent Appeal dated 03.01.2015. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2016, the said Rent Appeal of the respondents has been allowed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana. Hence, the present Revision Petition by the landlord.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord that the learned Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of the respondents primarily on the grounds that: -

a) the petitioner-Trust is not a legal entity and therefore cannot sue; and

b) because the petitioner has not mentioned in its Rent Petition that after the coming into force of the 1949 Act, the petitioner is not occupying any other similar premises.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the fact that the landlord-tenant relationship has been admitted by the respondents in their written statement, nothing more remained to be determined. The learned Appellate Authority has erred in law in accepting the respondents' appeal inter alia on the ground of authority of Basant Shah. In fact, respondent used to pay rent to Basant Shah himself. Further, in passing the impugned order, the learned Appellate Authority has gone beyond the contentions raised by the respondents.

7. It is further submitted that the Ld. Appellate Authority has also accepted the appeal as the words "not occupying any premises nor has vacated any such property and has not vacated such premises" have not been pleaded. It is pointed out that in the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief this fact is mentioned. Learned counsel argues that non-mentioning of the aforesaid words in the pleadings did not prejudice the respondents in any alleged manner whatsoever as the same has been stated in the affidavit and so much so the respondent have not pleaded in their reply to the corresponding paras that there is any other building in occupation of the petitioner and they have vacated such building in the concerned area. Therefore, findings of the Ld. Appellate Authority are wholly illegal, perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law.

8. It is further submitted that the pleading of the aforesaid sentences in the petition is not mandatory as the same can be gathered and put to the knowledge of the respondents