LAWS(P&H)-1968-9-18

SIRI KRISHAN DEV Vs. JHABU RAM

Decided On September 12, 1968
Siri Krishan Dev Appellant
V/S
Jhabu Ram Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, reversing, on appeal, the decision of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the tenant under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(2.) ON facts, there is no dispute. Under a Rent Note dated the 29th of March, 1956, the building as set out in the plan, Exhibit P.I, was rented out to the tenant by the landlord. It was stipulated in the Rent Note that the tenant will not do anything to the building which will not be acceptable to the landlord. At the time, when the building was rented out, it consisted of a Verandah, a Kotha and a Court -yard. The Kotha had no opening into the Verandah, but opened into the Court -yard; it had also two openings towards the North. The Court -yard had doors, opening into it, both from South and West. The Verandah also had an opening from the North and was accessible from the Court -yard. The tenant demolished a part of the building; and the building, as it now stands, is denoted on the plan, Exhibit 'PY'. The length of the Verandah has been reduced; and the part of the length, that has been reduced, has been included in the Kotha. The Kotha has been converted into a garage. The openings of the Kotha on the North have been closed. Its opening into the Court -yard has also been closed. It now opens into the Verandah. In front of the Verandah, which is left after this alteration, a Tin Shed has been put up thereby reducing the width of the Court -yard as well. The entrance to the Court -yard from the South has also been closed. The correctness of these plans is not disputed by either party.

(3.) MR . N.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondent, raised the contention that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not issued. No such objection was taken at the trial. It may very well have been that there was such a notice. But as the matter was not raised and not tried, the learned Counsel cannot be permitted to raise this plea at the revisional stage.