JUDGMENT Hlon'ble TATIA, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Rent Tribunal vide order dated 8.4.2005 ordered for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of his landlord and said order of the Rent Tribunal was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 6.8.2009, therefore, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-tenant. 3. Before proceeding with the matter, it will be worthwhile to mention here that how mechanically the petitions can be filed in the Rent Tribunal is fully proved from the present petition. 4. In the Rent Control Act, 2001 by Section 22 it has been provided that every petition or appeal as far as possible shall be in model form specified in Schedule-A and Schedule-B. The landlady-applicant assisted by her counsel mechanically complied with the requirement of said Section 22 (and also mechanically complied in tilling up performa eviction petition as typed by the typist) and submitted the following petition, which is quoted in toto to understand that whether there was any application of mind: 5. A bare perusal of the above petition clearly shows that it is nothing but filling up the columns in some form, which can be for even obtaining a railway ticket. In the above application /petition, against column No.8 stated that she has filed the petition (only) because of the reason that applicant is owner of the property! She nowhere stated any facts for building up grounds for eviction against her tenant of her personal need for the premises. In para No. 13, which is clause for relief, the applicant prayed that the rent may be enhanced and suit premises is required for the need of the applicant and her two sons out of three sons. When and how this need arose are not pleaded in the above said application. Firstly, the matter proceeded ex-parte and decree was passed which was set aside on an application of non-applicant tenant-petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner-non-applicant contested the eviction petition by filing reply. The petitioner-tenant had no objection to application; even of lack of grounds for eviction of petitioner-tenant in the main body of the petition. Not only this, but the petitioner-tenant submitted reply to the prayer made in eviction petition and disputed the need of the premises for non-petitioner-landlady. 6. The petitioner-tenant had no objection to application; even of lack of grounds for eviction of petitioner-tenant in the main body of the petition. Not only this, but the petitioner-tenant submitted reply to the prayer made in eviction petition and disputed the need of the premises for non-petitioner-landlady. 6. Issues were framed on both the grounds; whether the rent is required lo be enhanced as per Section 6 of the Act of 2001 and second is that the suit premises is required by the landlady for her personal need as well as for the need of her children. The petitioner-tenant had no objection for framing issue of personal necessity of non-petitioner-landlady. 7. Be it as it may be and the manner in which the total pleadings may be, as noticed above, the tenant-present petitioner submitted detailed reply to the application and in para No. 13 of the reply specifically contested the issue of personal bonafide necessity of the landlady by treating it a ground for petitioner's eviction from the suit premises and also took specific plea that the applicant is residing in Government allotted residence and her sons are in service, therefore, she has no personal bonafide necessity for the suit premises. The plaintiff was cross-examined on the issue of personal bonafide necessity and then petitioner-tenant also gave his evidence contesting the issue of bonafide necessity. 8. The tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal decided the issue of personal bonafide necessity in favour of landlady and now the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in writ jurisdiction is that since there was no pleading for personal bonafide necessity of the landlady in the petition filed by the non-petitioner and the plea of personal bonafide necessity has been taken only in the relief clause, therefore, for want of sufficient pleadings the eviction petition of the applicant should have been rejected. Further more, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that, original petition filed by the petitioner was only under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 whereunder only rent can be increased, which is apparent from the column No.7 of the petition and it was so till the Rent Tribunal decided the eviction petition. Further more, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that, original petition filed by the petitioner was only under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 whereunder only rent can be increased, which is apparent from the column No.7 of the petition and it was so till the Rent Tribunal decided the eviction petition. However, in the appellate court, in appeal preferred by the tenant, the appellate court allowed the application of the landlady filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and by which for the first time the non-petitioner-landlady was allowed, that too only, to incorporate "Section 9(i)" in column No.8 of the petition so as to make the petition specifically under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. That application was allowed by the appellate tribunal on 25.2.2010 and on next day, on 26.2.2010, the appeal was decided by the appellate tribunal upholding the eviction order passed by the tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that when there is no pleading, no evidence could have been produced to prove fact, relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Onkar Nath vs. Ved Vyas reported in AIR 1980 SC 1218 , H.D. Vashishta vs. M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I)(P) Ltd. reported in AIR 1979 SC 134 and Dr. (Mrs.) N.D. Khanna vs. M/s. Hindustan Industrial corporation, New Delhi reported in AIR 1981 Delhi 305. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the non-applicant-petitioner fully understood the case of the petitioner and ground of eviction. The petitioner-tenant submitted the reply to the eviction petition in detail and contested the non-petitioner's plea of her personal need of premises and issue was framed and the petitioner cross-examined the landlady and thereafter, he himself gave his evidence. The petitioner-tenant never objected to lack of pleadings of non-petitioner, therefore, he cannot raise objection of lack of pleading before this Court because the petitioner was not misled by any lack of pleading. 11. This Court constrained to observe that the petition has been filed without application of mind and mechanically, like filing the formate provided as the model form for such petition and more serious is that when typist failed to type column No.9 in the application which is: "Column 9. Material Facts: I. II. III." 12. The formate was filled without mentioning material facts for filing the petitioner. Material Facts: I. II. III." 12. The formate was filled without mentioning material facts for filing the petitioner. The Section 22 clearly provides that every petition or appeal shall be in the model form but with clear condition that "so far as possible." The columns are not meant to be filled in by one line so complete rituals of making a form into a eviction petition against the tenant. The forms are prescribed only for some guidance only and not for the purpose of confining the pleas within the space given by printer of law-book or "typist for the columns of the form. It is mandatory for any applicant to state facts which are necessary for seeking prayer and mandatory to disclose the cause of action in the petition. In this petition, column of fact though prescribed in the model form is missing and it appears that while typing model formate this column was not typed and therefore, basic facts required to be pleaded were not given in the petition. 13. Be that as it may be, even as said typed petition is filed, the tribunal also did not apply its mind to the alleged pleadings and did not ask the applicant to furnish material particular on the basis of which, the petition has been filed as could have been ordered under Order 6 Rule 5 CPC. The position of the non-applicant petitioner is also the same. He did not submit any application for obtaining any further and better particulars from the applicant-respondent. Now here in this writ petition it is alleged that in the eviction petition grounds for eviction of petitioner-tenant from the rented premises have not been taken by the respondent-applicant and this objection has been taken after filing of the reply to the petitioner prayer for eviction of non-petitioner on the ground of personal necessity and a specific flea has been taken by the petitioner-tenant that the landlady is residing ill Government accommodation. As per Order 8 CPC, the defendant is required to take all the defence which are available to the defendant and it is necessarily required to be taken in the written statement. In the Rent Control Tribunal written statement as such is not filed, but a reply to the application is filed. As per Order 8 CPC, the defendant is required to take all the defence which are available to the defendant and it is necessarily required to be taken in the written statement. In the Rent Control Tribunal written statement as such is not filed, but a reply to the application is filed. Even if, the application of Code of Civil procedure has been excluded then also it is the requirement of principle of natural justice that parties to the lis submit their case so that other party may understand what rival's case is? The plaintiffs duty to state facts constituting cause of action and the ground for relief and the same is the position for the defendant that he should submit his all defence and grounds for defence so that proper issues can be framed for trial of petition. If grounds are taken by the defendant in reply to the petition about any defect in pleadings or objection of technical nature and those defects can be cured by the applicant/petitioner or plaintiff then he is entitled to cure the defect because of the reason that justice cannot be defeated by one party by not taking defence at proper time so as to mislead the other party. In this case, the petitioner-tenant's reply not only discloses that the petitioner understood the case of non-petitioner but his reply mislead the non-petitioner so as to understand that non-petitioner's plea for eviction of petitioner-tenant as given in the petition is sufficiently pleaded. Court's duty is to do the justice and not to deny the relief merely on the technical grounds. If the petitioner-non-applicant would have taken the specific defence in the reply to the application, the applicant would have corrected that mistake of non-incorporation of column where facts should have been pleaded and have not been pleaded. 14. In the present case, the non-applicant petitioner virtually understood the application of the landlady as well as the court presumed that the petitioner-non-applicant understood the case of the applicant and understood the fact that eviction of the petitioner from the premises has been sought on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the landlady and, therefore, he specifically contested the issue for personal bonafide necessity of landlady. Issues are framed in civil litigation so that the party may specifically know what are the dispute between the parties, which will be determined by the court after framing of the issues. The non-applicant-petitioner could have raised the objection at the time of framing the issue that such issue cannot be framed because of the lack of the pleadings. The petitioner-non-applicant, did not raise the objection about the lack of pleadings nor raised objection against framing of issue of personal necessity of premises for the landlady. Therefore, petitioner's objection about lack of pleadings in the petition is not available the petitioner. 15. The objection was raised before the appellate Court that petition filed the landlady is only under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 and is not under Section 9 whereunder landlord can seek eviction of tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The non-petitioner, who without said mentioning of Section 9 in the petition already got the order of eviction of tenant from the Tribunal faced with this objection, submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The appellate Court allowed the said application tiled under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. At this stage also, it appears that tenant did not seek any further opportunity from the appellate tribunal that he needs opportunity to file any additional pleas which obviously because of the reason that nothing has been changed in any of the part of the facts mentioned in the eviction application because of allowing amendment in petition out by amendment, the applicant landlady allowed only to insert the relevant Section in the petition. At this stage, again it may be observed that non-mentioning of a particular section for which relief has been sought is immaterial when relief in fact has been sought. Therefore, even if the appellate Court would not have allowed the amendment in the original pleading of insertion of 'Section 9(i)' it would not have effected the nature of the application nor it would have effected the relief which could have been claimed in the petition, but first appellate Court allowed the application for amendment of eviction petition, which was a futile exercise only. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the court fees has not been paid for the relief of eviction, That is also not a ground taken by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the court fees has not been paid for the relief of eviction, That is also not a ground taken by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal. If petitioner would have taken this ground before the tribunal then the tribunal would have allowed the applicant to submit the deficit court fees. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC provides that if there is deficiency in payment of courts fees by the applicant then the court is required to give opportunity to the applicant to submit the additional or deficit court fees within stipulated period and if the applicant or plaintiff fails to pay the deficit court fees within the time stipulated by the court then only the application/suit can be rejected by the civil court and not otherwise. The same principle applies to the 'petition. The court fees can be recovered before execution of the decree and therefore also, on this ground, the petitioner cannot take shelter of any provision of law for getting eviction petition dismissed when Order 7 Rule 11 CPC provides that defect is defect curable defect. 17. So far as merit of the case is concerned, I do not find that the two courts below have committed any error of such nature which may allow this Court to interfere in finding of facts. 18. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises. 19. I considered this prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner be granted time upto 30.12.2010 to vacate the premises in question. 20. 19. I considered this prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner be granted time upto 30.12.2010 to vacate the premises in question. 20. Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the petitioner furnishes a written undertaking before the trial Court that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the respondent/landlady by or before 1.1.2011 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the premises in question during this period and shall pay all the arrears of rent and decree tal amount, if due, within a period of two months from today and shall also deposit the rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month of his tenancy, in the bank account of the respondent/landlady, particulars of which be supplied to the petitioner, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 1.1.2011. 21. In case of non-compliance of this order or default in payment of rent mentioned above, the respondent will be free to execute the decree forthwith without obtaining any order from this Court. 22. With the aforesaid concession, this writ petition is dismissed.