RAVI KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.K. Gupta alongwith Sri Swapnil Kumar for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Satish Mandhyan for the respondent. This petition by the landlord is directed against a revisional order dated 3.9.2007 allowing a revision of the respondent-tenant against a decree of eviction. The petitioner-landlord instituted a Small Cause Court Suit No. 112 of 2002 inter alia with the allegation that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of Premises No. 6/20, Putaria Mahal, Jamuna Kinara, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the disputed premises) wherein Sri Ganga Prasad was the original tenant of Rs. 31.50 p. of the entire first and second floor for residential purposes and after his death, his sons Bishambhar Prasad and Mahesh Prasad inherited joint tenancy but both had constructed their own house within Municipal Limit of Agra yet they did not vacate the premises and in order to collect premium and rent, they have illegally sublet the portion of the premises of the first and second floor by inducting three subtenants and apart from that, they have made material structural alterations and additions thereby disfiguring the premises and diminishing its value and utility without any written consent of the landlord. It was also alleged that even the meagre rent was not being paid and despite notice dated 2.4.2002, they had not vacated the premises, forcing them to file the suit.

(2.) Three sets of written statements were filed, one by Bishambhar Prasad and other by Mahesh Prasad and the subtenants filed their joint written statements. Bishambhar Prasad in his written statement alleged that after the death of his father, he only became tenant as the other brother Mahesh Prasad was residing in U.S.A. and he is paying rent to the landlord, factum of construction of the house at Vaibhav Nagar was denied but construction of house by Mahesh Prasad was admitted. It was admitted that the subtenants were in occupation since 1946 and they are paying rent, but the material alterations were denied. Sri Mahesh Prasad filed his own written statement stating that he was living in USA and after the death of Ganga Prasad only Bishambhar Prasad became the tenant but he admitted construction of a house at Vaibhav Nagar and that the subtenants were in occupation prior to 1946. The subtenants filed their joint written statements reiterating the allegations of Bishambhar Prasad.

(3.) After considering the stand taken by the parties, the Judge, Small Cause Court framed as many as 6 issues for determination and held that both Bishambhar Prasad and Mahesh Prasad succeeded to the joint tenancy on the death of the original tenant. It also held that the sub-tenancy was without consent and created after 1946. It found that there was default but the arrears of rent were deposited on the first date of hearing, however, it refused to give any benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the tenants have built a house at Vaibhav Nagar. On the question of material alteration, it found that large scale material alterations have been made without any permission and which had not only diminished its value and utility but has endangered the very existence of the premises. On these findings it decreed the suit.