JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J—The revision has arisen against an order passed on 31 st December, 1985 by the Appellate Authority, Kangra at Dharamshala dismissing the petitioners appeal and thereby confirming the order passed on ]6th March, 1982 by the Rent Controller, Kangra at Dharamshala, dismissing the petitioners application seeking respondents eviction from a non-residential building. 2. The petitioner-landlord on 18th November, 1978 filed a petition against the respondents. Respondent No. 1 was impleaded as tenant and respondent No. 2 as a sub-tenant. It was alleged that the premises had been let out to respondent No 1 somewhere in the year 1968 on a monthly rental of Rs. 40. Eviction was sought on three grounds, namely, (a) non-payment of arrears by respondent No 1 from 1st October, 1975 till date ; (b) the premises are required by the petitioner for the purposes of re-construction and bonafide requirement of his own use ; and (c) that respondent No. 1 had sublet the premises to respondent No 2 without the consent and permission of the petitioner. 3 Respondent No. 1 in his reply stated that he had nothing to do with the premises. It was respondent No. 2 alone, who was in occupation of the premises as a direct tenant under the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 in his reply took up a stand that he was in occupation of the premises as a tenant having been inducted by the petitioner in the year 1968 at the intervention of Lala Daya Ram, brother of Jagdish Chand Sud, who was the previous tenant, who died on 15th August, 1967. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 had no concern with the premises. There was no question of subletting. The other two grounds were also denied. It was stated that the petitioner does not require the premises for reconstruction and he never defaulted in making payment of the rent and moreover full rent had been tendered in Court. 4. It was respondent No. 2, who tendered the rent in Court, which was not accepted by the petitioner. The trial Court dismissed the petition for eviction holding that there was no subletting. It was held that since respondent No 1 was not a tenant but it was respondent No. 2, who was the tenant, who had tendered the arrears of rent, therefore, order of eviction on two grounds was not passed. The trial Court dismissed the petition for eviction holding that there was no subletting. It was held that since respondent No 1 was not a tenant but it was respondent No. 2, who was the tenant, who had tendered the arrears of rent, therefore, order of eviction on two grounds was not passed. The third ground was also rejected The landlord carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority concurring with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court dismissed the petitioners appeal. It is this order, which is under challenge in the instant revision petition. 5. At the very outset, it may be noticed that the petition was preferred under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (Act No. 23 of 1971), which has since been repealed and is replaced by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1 6. Ground of subletting as contained in section 14 of the Act is to the following effect; "14(2). A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied— (i) * • * * * (ii) That the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord— (a) transferred his nights under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof, or ***** * * * *» 7. From the above, it is clear that eviction of a tenant can be had by landlord on the ground of subletting for which, it is necessary for the landlord to firstly allege and then prove that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act, without the written consent of the landlord, transferred his rights under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof. Subletting prior to the commencement of the Act is not made a ground for eviction. The words, after the commencement of the Act, in sub-section (2) of section 14, in view of the deeming provision of sub-section (3) of section 1 have to be read as 17th November, 1971. 8. Subletting prior to the commencement of the Act is not made a ground for eviction. The words, after the commencement of the Act, in sub-section (2) of section 14, in view of the deeming provision of sub-section (3) of section 1 have to be read as 17th November, 1971. 8. In the petition for eviction, there is absolutely no pleading made that the tenant had after the commencement of the Act sublet the premises Because of lack of this material particular, it cannot be said that the pleadings on this ground did disclose any cause of action The petition on this ground ought not to have been taken to trial since it discloses no cause of action. Once a material fact was lacking and there was no averment in the petition, the petition ought to have been summarily rejected, 9. Even for the other ground of eviction, namely, reconstruction, the relevant ground is contained in Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 14, which says that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, in case the building or rented land is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or additions or alterations cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. 10. In order to seek eviction of a tenant on the ground of reconstruction, as per provisions contained in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 14, the necessary pleadings, which are required to be made in the petition are (a) the building or rented land is required bona fide for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations, and (b) that such building or re-building or additions or alterations cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. 11. On this ground in the eviction petition, the second ingredient that the reconstruction cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated is absolutely lacking. 12. 11. On this ground in the eviction petition, the second ingredient that the reconstruction cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated is absolutely lacking. 12. The apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, 1979 1LR HP 1 (SC) had an occasion to deal with the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Control Act, which are similar to the one contained in the Act and held that the statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken care to put restrictions which, must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute. When the legislature had taken care to insist upon certain conditions to be fulfilled before a tenant can be ordered to be evicted, not only the pleadings must specify conditions but the same must also be proved. Inadequacy of pleadings will not make out any cause of action. 13. In the instant case, eviction was sought on the ground of subletting and reconstruction. For subletting, a landlord is required to allege that the tenant has after commencement of the Act, without the consent of the landlord, transferred his right under lease or sublet the entire building or any portion thereof. In case there is no pleading and the subletting took place after commencement of the Act, there will be a complete lack of cause of action. Similarly, on the ground of reconstruction, as noticed above, in case it is not alleged that reconstruction cannot be carried out without the tenant vacating the building, there will be complete lack of cause of action. Consequently, the petition, which discloses no cause of action ought to have been rejected and not put to trial at ail. 14. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Rent Controller are set aside. The petition for eviction is rejected as disclosing no cause of action. Needless to add that the rejection of the petition for eviction on this technical ground will not debar the petitioner in seeking tenants eviction by taking out fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their respective costs. Petition rejected. -