SARDAR BAHADUR MATHUR Vs. KALI PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendant's appeal that arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages. The Appellant is a tenant of the Respondent's house on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. The Respondent sued for the Appellant's ejectment from the house on the ground of unauthorised subletting and also on the ground that he had without the Respondent's permission made constructions in the house which had materially altered the accommodation and had diminished its value. He also claimed damages for use and occupation in respect of the period subsequent to the termination of the tenancy. The Appellant denied that he had sublet the premises. Though he admitted having made certain constructions he contended that they were of a minor nature and were not such as could entitle the Respondent to maintain suit for ejectment on their basis. In respect of the amount claimed he said that it was due as rent and that he had sent the amount by money order but the Respondent had not accepted the same. After the suit had been filed the amount had been deposited in court.

(2.) The trial court rejected the contention that there had been any subletting. It, however, found that certain constructions had been made which amounted to material alteration of the house and that the Respondent was on that account entitled to eject the Appellant Under Sec. 3(c) of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. He found the claim for damages for use and occupation also to be established. He, therefore, decreed the suit for ejectment and for the recovery of Rs. 1222 -8 -0 as damages and for future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 45 per month.

(3.) An appeal was preferred against the decree by the Defendant and the Plaintiff filed a cross -objection in respect of the finding on the question of subletting. Both the appeal and the cross objection were dealt with together. The finding that there was no unauthorised sub letting was upheld. The learned Civil Judge also agreed with the finding of the trial court that certain constructions had been made by the Defendant which amounted to material alteration of the accommodation though they did not diminish its value. He, therefore, upheld the decree for ejectment. The decree for the amount claimed was not questioned before him.