SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to the landladies to examine the following questions of law arising in the case:-- "(i) Whether there was any change of ground on which ejectment was sought?
(ii) Whether the petitioners could have been denied the ejectment order without having concluded that they were not capable of running a ladies' garments business? And
(iii) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of bona fide personal requirement on the basis of the material on record? `
2. The facts of the case disclose that previously Ghulam Muhammad, the predecessor- in-interest of the appellants had applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant/respondent from the shop on the ground of bona fide personal need. He soon died. The ladies thereafter applied for getting the shop vacated mentioning that they would run a business in collaboration with one of their relatives who, it appears, at that time was employed in the Municipal Committee and was subsequently recruited as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department. The need of the landladies was challenged but the Rent Controller found it established and directed the ejectment of the tenant. On appeal, the High Court reversed the finding of the Rent Controller mainly on two grounds.
The first ground was that the evidence led at the trial did not conform to the pleadings inasmuch as in the eviction application it was stated that they would be running a business in collaboration with the relative but at the trial they mentioned that they would be doing independently the business because the relative selected by them for, business had got employment in the police department. This could not be done without amending the application for ejectment.
The second was that the landladies have failed to prove that they were `badly in need of earning their livelihood'.
3. There has been a legal error in making these two factors the test for determining the bona fide need of the landladies. The pleadings may in a given case consist, of facts on which cause of action is based, of law which recognises such cause of action and the material on which that cause of action can be sustained. With regard to facts forming the basis of the cause of action, the view taken by the High Court is correct. However, with regard to the law and the material on which the cause of action is to be sustained, there is no such commitment, finality or binding effect. The party can itself show that the law referred to by it is incorrect or that the evidence which it wants to lead, it will not lead but substitute it by some other.
4. In the case in hand the fact that the landladies needed the property for their personal use was a statement of fact relating to cause of action. How that need was to be satisfied after acquiring the property was anticipatory in nature and no landlord/landlady could be denied the relief if instead of operating the business through the named relative he/she decides to operate the business through any other relative. The need would be there. The business would be there. Only the relative or the named assistant may be different. In this case none of the Courts has said that the need is not there. But what has been said is that it is not clear how the need will be satisfied. About that there is discrepant evidence and that discrepancy belies the seed. That cannot be the argument or the reasoning.
5. As regards the second ground, it is not the requirement of law that the landlord/landlady must establish on record that he/she is badly in need of earning livelihood for getting his/her own property vacated for his/her personal use. With the galloping inflation in the country and when every one is free to embark on a profession of his/her own liking, a chance cannot be denied even to those who have not worked so far, from starting a business or participating in an enterprise for the purpose of augmenting their income and fulfilment of their aspirations.
6. There was an effort on the part of the learned counsel for the respondent to point out to the property that these landladies owned in the form of bungalows and the male members of the family who were earning abroad. There is no evidence on record with regard to the nature and extent of income available to these landladies and none of the Courts has made that a ground for disentitling them.
7. In the circumstances, the appeal is accepted, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Controller is restored. The respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession of shop in question to the appellants after four months, the premises being in commercial use. No order is made as to costs.