J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlady Smt. Kans Rani sought the ejectment of her tenant Sarpat Singh from the demised premises consisting of two rooms which was rented on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises as the common wall of the two rooms was removed. In the written statement the plea taken by the tenant was that the wall existing between two rooms was removed with the consent of the landlady, and, therefore, it did not provide any ground for ejectment. Both the authorities below have found that the intervening wall was removed by the tenant without the consent of th landlady. It has been further found that it has come in evidence that the roof is supported with pillar which further indicates that the support to the roof has been weakened due to removal of the wall. Thus it was ultimately held that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. Consequently, eviction order was passed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant petitioner submitted that according to the landlady herself the said wall was removed 5 years back when she appeared in the witness-box in the year 1983. Thus argued the learned counsel that the landlady not taking any action for this period amounts to consent of the landlady in removing the wall. In support of his contention he referred to Mohinder Singh v. Om Parkash and Ors. 1978(2) RCR 401.;