ORDER
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant’s revision against the orders of the authorities below ordering his ejectment.
2. Landlady (respondent herein) filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking ejectment of her tenant (petitioner herein) on various grounds including the property being unfit and unsafe for human habitation and material impairment in the value and utility of the building.
3. Petition was contested by the tenant who denied the allegations contained in the ejectment petition. The Rent Controller, after finding that the tenant had made material alterations and thereby impaired the value and utility of the building, ordered ejectment of the tenant The ground of building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation was also decided in favour of the landlady, Tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller only with regard to the ground of impairment of value and utility of the building. The other ground, namely, the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, was decided against the tenant. Tenant has come in revision impugning the said order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. Both the Authorities below found that the tenant replaced the roof, constructed a shed and stair-case and by these acts, he impaired the value and utility of the building and, therefore, was liable to be ejected. While arriving at this conclusion, the Authorities below did not take into consideration the pleadings of the parties. The landlady in her ejectment petition nowhere alleged as to what was the material alteration made by the tenant. The only pleadings “that a substantial portion of the demised premises is in a dilapidated condition and had actually fallen down. The respondent has without the consent of the petitioners made constructions and material structural alterations in the disputed property and thus materially impaired the value and utility of the building, it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
5. Tenant took specific objection that alterations have not been specified. Though the landlady filed re joinder but despite specific objection taken by the tenant, no detail was given in the rejoinder. It is thus clear that there were no pleadings with regard to the nature and extent of alterations alleged to have been made by the tenant. It is well settled that in absence of pleadings, no evidence could be led muchless could be gone into. It is not the case that no grievance was made by the tenant before the Authorities regarding absence of pleadings, As already noticed, a specific objection to this effect was taken by the tenant in his written statement but the landlady failed to give details. Even otherwise, simply because the tenant has replaced the roof, is not enough to hold that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. So far as construction of shed and staircase is concerned, it has not been proved on record as to whether the same are temporary or permanent. The landlady examined Satish Gupta as expert witness who also proved on record his report. Exhibit R-2. In his report he nowhere mentioned whether the stair-case or the shed are temporary or permanent. He has also not stated as to whether these constructions brought about a substantial change in the front and structure of the building. In Om Pal v. Anand Swarup (1988-2) 94 P.L.R. 699 (S.C.), the Supreme Court reviewed the entire case laws on the subject and held that “in order to attract Section 13 (2) (ii), construction must not only be one affecting or damaging the value and utility of the building but such impairment must be of material nature.” In Om Pal’s case (supra), replacement of roof was held not to be such a construction which would impair the value and utility of the building.
6. Thus, having regard to the nature of alleged material alterations i. e. replacement of roof, constructing of shed and stair-case, I find no difficulty in holding that these constructions do not, in law. constitute material alterations to the tenanted premises so as to give cause of action to the landlady to seek ejectment of her tenant.
7. In fairness to counsel for the landlady, I may notice the three decisions cited by him in Ashok Kumar v. Faqir Chand (1987-2) 92 P.L.R. 95, Bawa Singh v. Pushpa Watt, 1980 (2) R.C.R. 492 and Narain Singh v. Backson Laboratories 1981 (2) R.C.R. 237. A reading of these authorities shows that they are clearly distinguishable and have no paralel with the facts of the case in hand whereas the Supreme Court decisions in Om Pal’s case (supra), squarely covers the issue in controversy.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this revision is allowed and the orders of ejectment passed by the Authorities below is set aside. Consequently the ejectment petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.