RAM AUTAR Vs. IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition of a tenant-petitioner arises out of a suit filed by the landlord respondent no. 3 praying for a decree for the ejectment of the petitioner from the permises in dispute and for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation pendente-lite and future at the rate of Rs. 41/- per month and also for the recovery of water- tax and house tax. The trial court decreed the suit and the said decree was affirmed in revision by the respondent no. 1 Feeling aggrieved from, the aforesaid decree, the tenant-petitioner has now approached this Court for redress

(2.) THE suit referred to above had been filed on 21-3-79. Initially the plaintiff-landlord had come up with the allegations that the tenant-defendant defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 and had further sub-let the accommodation and was liable to be evicted therefrom on the ground contemplated under section 20 (2) (e) of the said Act. During the pendency of the suit certain events took place which required to.be brought to the notice of the trial court and necessitated the amendment of the plaint. THE subsequent events provided a fresh ground for the decree sought for inasmuch as; it attracted the ground contemplated under section 20 (2) (d) of the U. P. Act no 13 of 1972. In these circumstances an application seeking amendment In the plaint was moved by the plaintiff-landlord which was allowed by the trial court on 29-50-82 and became final. With the order allowing the amendment the necessary pleadings attracting the ground for ejectment contemplated under section 20 (2) (d) of the U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972, thus, became part of the pleadings of the plaintiff. THE defendant was allowed to file an additional written statement and on the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed a specific issue on the amended pleadings which was issue no 4 and the parties were afforded full opportunity to lead evidence on this issue. This issue no. 4 covered the controversy as to whether the defendant was liable to ejectment on the ground that he had without the consent in writing of the landlord used the demised premises for a purpose other than the purpose for which he had been admitted to the tenancy of the building and the act of converting a portion of building in dispute for residential user being inconsistent with the use which has been permitted was sufficient for the grant of a decree of his eviction from the premises in dispute.

(3.) I have heard Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. C. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent and have perused the record.