MOHINDER LAL Vs. SAROJ KUMARI VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition against the order of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh, dated April 7, 1982, allowing the prayer of the plaintiff to lead additional evidence, has arisen out of a suit filed for ejectment of the petitioner who admittedly is in occupation of the building in dispute as a tenant. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the suit was not competent in the Civil Court in view of the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, as application to the Union Territory, Chandigarh. The burden of proof of the issue framed concerning this plea was placed on the defendant. He led no evidence in proof thereof. The plaintiff also closed her evidence but later on filed an application for the permission to summon the clerk concerned from the office of the Executive Engineer Public Health, Union Territory, Chandigarh to prove the date of the sewerage connection which was allowed by the Court.

(2.) The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the legality of impugned order is that there being no plea of the plaintiff that building dispute was exempted from the provisions of the said act, he could not be permitted to lead any evidence to prove the facts entitling him to claim exemption. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, contended that the objection having been raised by the defendant, the plaintiff was under no obligation to raise such a plea, I am afraid, I am unable to agree with this approach. The moment the Rent Restriction Act stood extended to Union Territory Chandigarh, all buildings would be governed by its provisions unless the Party coming to the Court pleads the circumstances showing the building covered by any exemption. As no facts claiming exemption were pleaded, the plaintiff was not entitled to lead any evidence to prove the facts entitling her to an exemption. This petition is consequently allowed and the impugned order set aside but without any order as to costs. The plaintiff, however, shall not be debarred because of this order, from making any prayer for the amendment of the plaint. The parties through their counsel are directed to appeal in the trial Court on the date already fixed.