PHAGGOO MAL Vs. SMT. CHANDRAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the vexed question that arises is whether the tenant without the written permission of the landlady made such alterations as in the opinion of the Court materially altered the accommodation within the meaning of Section 3(i)(c) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, hereinafter called the Act. Whether the defendant tenant used the accommodation for a purpose other than for which it was let out is the other question arising for consideration.

(2.) Admittedly the accommodation leased to the defendant consisted of two small rooms to which an open piece of land extending towards the west was appurtenant. The husband of the plaintiff respondent by a deed of lease dated 16.12.1972 let out the said accommodation to the defendant for the purpose of carrying on business for a term of two years at a rental of Rs. 25/- per month. The term of the lease expired in 1944 but the defendant continued in occupation and the plaintiff after the death of her husband continued to accept the rent. The tenancy of the defendant after the expiry of term of lease in 1944 became a tenancy from month to month.

(3.) Through a notice dated 6.10.1958 served on the defendant on 9.10.1958 the plaintiff complained that the defendant had made new constructions in the accommodation and had been using the accommodation for purposes inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let out. The plaintiff also terminated the tenancy by the said notice and asked the defendant to vacate the accommodation on the expiry of thirty days from the receipt thereof. The plaintiff did not file any suit for eviction of the defendant who continued to be in occupation even after the ninth day of November, 1958. Eventually by another notice date 16.4.1959 she terminated the tenancy of the defendant and asked him to vacate the accommodation on the expiry of thirty days on receipt thereof and further complained that besides the constructions raised by him prior to the earlier notice he had closed two existing doors of one of the rooms and had opened a new door in the western wall of that room, thereby materially altering the accommodation and using it for residential purposes inconsistent with the terms of the lease which permitted only the carrying on of business. This notice was duly served on the defendant on 21.4.1959. The defendant declined to vacate the accommodation. The plaintiff then brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for eviction of the defendant from the leased accommodation alleging that the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and as the defendant had materially altered the accommodation by raising constructions without the permission in writing of the plaintiff and had used the accommodation for residential purposes for which it was not leased, the bar for filing the suit for eviction under Section 3 of the said Act would not apply.