Strict proof of rent-control eviction grounds and proper pleadings required; vague subletting and unproved notice defeated eviction.

A revision petitioner impleaded in eviction proceedings and in possession of the premises was held to have locus standi to challenge the eviction order, particularly where the original tenant or legal representatives did not effectively participate. On the merits, eviction was not sustained on default, as statutory notice demanding arrears was not proved as required; alleged permanent structure failed because digging a well did not match the pleaded ground; subletting was not established due to vague pleadings and no identified portion; and bona fide requirement failed for want of particulars on the proposed construction and preparedness. The court held that eviction under the rent-control grounds could not stand without strict proof of the pleaded foundation and statutory requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revision petitioner, being impleaded and in possession, had locus standi to challenge the eviction order; (ii) whether the grounds of default in payment of rent, erection of permanent structure, unlawful subletting or transfer, and bona fide requirement for personal occupation were proved.

Issue (i): whether the revision petitioner, being impleaded and in possession, had locus standi to challenge the eviction order.

Analysis: A party impleaded in the eviction proceedings and directly affected by the order may contest the order in revision, especially where the original tenant or legal representatives do not effectively participate. The objection raised at the stage of final hearing was also not entertained as a bar to the maintainability of the revision.

Conclusion: The revision petitioner had locus standi to maintain the revision.

Issue (ii): whether the grounds of default in payment of rent, erection of permanent structure, unlawful subletting or transfer, and bona fide requirement for personal occupation were proved.

Analysis: For eviction on default, service of the statutory notice demanding arrears was a condition precedent and the notice relied on was not proved in the manner required by law. For eviction on the alleged permanent structure, mere digging of a well did not amount to erection of a permanent structure within the pleaded case. For unlawful subletting, the pleading was vague because the part of the premises said to have been sublet was not specified, and the landlords could not travel beyond their pleadings to rely on transfer of leasehold interest. For bona fide requirement, the petition lacked necessary particulars about the nature of the proposed construction, preparedness, sanctioned plans, and supporting pleadings, so the evidence adduced could not cure the deficiency. The findings of the court below on these grounds were therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: None of the eviction grounds under clauses (a), (c), (f), and (h) of Section 21(1) was proved.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order could not be sustained on any of the grounds urged, and the revision succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Eviction under a statutory rent-control ground cannot be sustained unless the pleaded foundation and the statutory requirements, including notice where mandated, are strictly proved; evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be used to make out a new case.

---