(1.) Heard Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. Shailendra appearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.) This is a tenant's petition arising out of suit filed by respondents-landlord on the ground of default in payment of rent and structural alteration in the premises in dispute. It was pleaded that tenant was in arrears of rent and had made material alteration by diminishing the wall partitioning the shop and the gallery and the door, amalgamating the area of the gallery in the shop without any permission from the landlord. Petitioner-tenant contested the proceedings by filing written statement denying the allegations. It was pleaded therein that there was no default in payment of rent and no structural alteration has been done. It was further pleaded that landlord-respondent filed an earlier Suit No. 80 of 1976 on the allegation that tenant was in arrears of rent and has opened a door in the eastern wall without permission. The dispute was compromised between the parties and under the terms of the compromise deed dated 21.05.1980, petitioner was allowed to continue as a tenant of shop and gallery on eastern side on enhanced rent of Rs.115/- per month and, thus, it cannot be said that alteration by demolition of partition wall was without the consent of the landlords.
(3.) In so far as the issue of arrears of rent is concerned, trial court recorded a finding that entire outstanding has been deposited on the first date of hearing, as such, the tenant was entitled to be extended the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act). However, on the issue of material alteration, trial court decreed the suit. Tenant-petitioner went up in revision, which was dismissed by the revisional court vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2003. Both the courts below have held that tenant-petitioner has demolished the partition wall between the shop and gallery and has amalgamated the area of the gallery in the shop which has resulted in diminishing its value.