CHIRANJI LAL Vs. FIFTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Judge Small Causes, Aligarh and affirmed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Aligarh, ordering his eviction from the disputed premises. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was the tenant of a shop which had an open platform on two sides; on one side there was a road and on the other side there was a lane. The suit was filed by the plaintiff with the allegations that the defendant had materially altered and substantially damaged ihe shop and as such its value has been reduced. According to the plaintiff the defendant has converted one shop into three and sub-let the same. He was accordingly liable to be ejected as having made material alterations and having sub-let the portion of the premises. In the written statement it was admitted that the defendant had made two show cases of wood and for that purpose as had made two purdah walls of bricks. It is accepted that the platform was in the tenancy of the petitioner. According to paragraph 13 of the written statement the defendant had put two wooden show cases with small wooden counters on the lintal. The wooden structure is placed on the lintal temporarily by the side of walls and is not imbedded in the walls or floor of the shop. A commission was issued for inspection and it submitted two reports. It was reported that by bent nails the wooden structure was fixed with iron angles and on which a tin shed was raised. The trial Court came to a conclusion that there was no sub-tenancy as alleged by the plaintiff and further that the wooden structure was placed on the platform. No harm whatsoever was caused to the original construction. The plaintiff filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Causes Courts Act and the revisional Court has upset the judgment holding that there was material alteration which reduced that value of the plaintiff's structure and, therefore, the defendant was liable to be ejected. It also entered into the realm of conjectures in holding that the platform of the plaintiff may fall under the weight of the structure. I have scrutinized the case and found no material which may show that the lintal was in any manner damaged or likely to be damaged by the defendant's structures. The Court below has given a finding which is wholly against the record and accordingly is perverse. Sri R. P. Goel, counsel for the respondent, argued that the bricks had been taken out from the wall of the plaintiff and angles had been fixed there in. There is no evidence to show that the structure of the plaintiff had been weakened in any manner. On the question of damage the learned counsel could not point out that any structure of the plaintiff had been damaged. So far as the fixing of the angle irons or bent nails are concerned, if that is taken as a damage to the structure then it would be impossible for the tenant to enjoy the accommodation. Even getting the electric wiring made, telephone fixed, curtain pelmets attached. , having pegs fixed would all amount material alteration. The question that was involved was whether the structure of the building was altered. The wooden structures made on the platform are for the time being. The learned counsel for the respondent wanted to argue that by placing the wooden show cases the show of the plaintiff's building was changed. Change of show may not be material unless the building itself was altered. A tenant may like to have outer surface painted in a different colour or he may hang curtains or place such other ornamental things which may conceal or change the show of the outer wall but unless the outer wall itself was materially altered the structure of the plaintiff could not be said to have been altered. So far as the construction of the partition walls on the lintal was concerned. No doubt they had been made by the defendant but it cannot be said that any part of the plaintiff's structure had been altered. These cases can be removed by the defendant as and when required. The learned counsel for the respordent relied upon a case which was cited before the Court below as well. It is Dilip Singh v. Dropati Devi's case 1979 U. P. Rent Control Cases 384, In that case the learned Single Judge held the constructions to have been materially altered where a tenant removed eight steps of a stair case and the partition wall belonging to the plaintiff. In that case there was material and substantial alteration. But by merely shielding the outer wall of the plaintiff's building or placing show cases in the shape of shop etc. on the platform which was a distinct structure, no alteration can be said to have been made to the building itself. The Court below has acted illegally and exceeded the jurisdiction in holding that the premises had been materially altered though no such alteration was in the structure of the building itself. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Aligarh dated 15-2-1980 (Annexure 12 to the petition) is quashed. The judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh shall stand. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs of this petition from respondent No. 3. .