Naresh Chander Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority by which he has been ordered to be evicted. The order of the Rent Controller went in his favour. The Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord which was filed on the ground that by making alteration and changes in the demised premises, the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The learned Appellate Authority while reversing the order of the Rent Controller has relied upon two factors and thereby concluded that the tenant is guilty of impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. In the first instance the statement of the tenant himself has been relied upon whereby he has stated that two rooms, a verandah and a compound comprised of his tenancy. In the second instance the report of the Local Commissioner has been relied upon stating that three rooms besides a Kitchen were found by the Local Commissioner. The Appellate Authority, therefore, was of the view that since a large constructed portion was found on the spot which was not even the case of the tenant, he must be held guilty of adding at least one room to the tenanted premises.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Arun Jain, has vehemently argued that it is for the landlord to state in the petition as to how the value and the utility of the demised premises has been impaired. He has drawn my attention to the plea taken by the landlord in his application for eviction wherein he has vaguely stated that the Respondent has made construction, alterations and the changes in the house in question without the consent of the Petitioner -landlord, while making the impairment as one of the grounds in paragraph 4 it has been averred that the Respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the house in question and hence he has made himself liable to ejectment. In this paragraph nothing has been stated as to by which act of the tenant the value and utility of the demised premises has been impaired. I find considerable force in the contention raised before me. The landlord has to specify the extent of construction made and it is only thereafter that it can left to the judgment of the court as to whether that particular construction would bring the tenant within mischief of the statute or not. Simply because the tenant has stated before the court about the portion which was given to him on rent and there was a larger portion found by the Local Commissioner is no ground to plead that the tenant is guilty of impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. Moreover, it is for the landlord to prove the ground of ejectment and this can only be done by taking a specific plea which is missing in the application for eviction. This being the factual position, I am of the firm view that the appellate authority has committed an apparent error in recording the finding that the tenant is guilty of impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. The law is well settled that no amount of evidence can be looked in to untill and unless the plea is raised. In the absence of a specific plea the appellate Authority was not right in recording the finding and, therefore, the order must be reversed. In view of my above mentioned observations, this Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the appellate authority is reversed and that of the Rent Controller is restored. The application of the landlord is dismissed no order as to costs.;