SHAKIL AHMAD Vs. MOH. IZZATULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel for tenants petitioners and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for landlords respondents. This is tenants' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted against the tenants by landlords respondents in the form of S.C.C. Suit No.31 of 1986, Smt. Sharif Bano and five others Vs. Sri Munshi Shaukat Ali Khan since deceased and survived by the petitioners. Property in dispute is a house, rent of which is Rs.10/- per month. Suit was filed on the ground of default and material alteration. Suit for eviction was decreed by J.S.C.C./ Civil Judge (J.D.), Etah through the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1998. Against the said decree, tenants filed S.C.C. Revision No.18 of 1998, which was dismissed by A.D.J., Court No.7, Etah on 05.08.2004, hence this writ petition.

(2.) IN respect of default the courts below held that defendants were not defaulter. The suit was decreed on the ground of material alteration and structural changes. The plaintiffs had pleaded that in the courtyard of the house towards east, there was a dehliz, which was not having walls towards north and south; the tenant demolished eastern and western walls of the dehliz and started constructing a new room and latrine at that place, hence landlords had to file O.S. No.355 of 1986 for permanent prohibitory injunction against the tenant. The tenants pleaded that there was no dehliz in the house and that the eastern wall of the house, which was towards road was old hence it fell down in rainy season; the tenants requested the landlords to reconstruct the same whereupon the landlords stated that if the rent was enhanced to Rs.200/- per month then they would get the wall constructed and also an additional room otherwise the tenants should themselves construct the wall. The tenants further stated that they expressed their inability to enhance the rent and agreed that they themselves would reconstruct the wall. Tenants further pleaded that in the suit for injunction, temporary injunction was granted to the landlords but the same was vacated in misc. appeal, thereafter tenants reconstructed the wall.

(3.) BOTH the courts below after thorough discussion of the entire evidence on record held that the dehliz was demolished by the defendants. Demolition of dehliz certainly amounts to damage to the building and structural alteration which diminishes the value and utility of the building which are grounds of eviction under Section 20(2)(b) and (c) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. In this regard learned counsel for landlords has cited several authorities particularly the authorities of Yusuf Ali Vs. A.D.J., 2013 (3) ADJ 450 and Jagdish Chandra Sharma Vs. Smt. Hansmukhi Devi, 2009 (8) ADJ 707. Learned counsel for tenants petitioners has mainly placed reliance upon judgment dated 24.04.1987 given by IV A.D.J. Etah in Misc. Appeal No.61 of 1986, Mushi Shaukat Ali Khan Vs. Smt. Sharif Bano and others, which was directed against temporary injunction passed in the earlier suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. (Annexure-RA-I). The particular sentence in the said judgment, which was emphasized by learned counsel for petitioner was as follows: