HARBANS SHARMA Vs. SMT. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the order of the appellate Authority dated March 15, 1980 whereby the judgement of the Rent Controller was reversed and the ejectment petition allowed.

(2.) The respondent sought the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the value and utility of the building in dispute has been materially impaired by removing the intervening wall between the two rooms and thereby converting it into one big room. The tenant contested the petition and the plea initially taken by him was that as the cracks had appeared in the wall and the beam over it, the owner got it removed under her supervision. However, during the course of the evidence, the respondent proved a letter; Exhibit A-4/X, written by the tenant in which he had admitted the removal of the wall on his own. Thereafter, the written statement was amended and it was pleaded that the respondent had waived her right and was estopped by her own conduct from raising this plea. The Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence negatived the plea of the respondent that impairment in the utility or the value of the building had been caused by the removal of the wall and upholding the plea of the waiver and estoppal of the tenant on the basis of letter, Exhibit A. 4/X dismissed the petition. However, on appeal its findings on both the issues were reversed and the ejectment order passed which necessitated the filing of this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in the first instance urged that as cracks had appeared in the wall in dispute and the beam over it, it was got removed with the conset of the respondent. This point has been raised for the first time at this stage and was neither pleaded nor urged before either of the two authorities below. I, therefore, do not propose to allow the petitioner to take up this new plea at this stage.