RAM MURTY GUPTA Vs. SURESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from an accommodation. The suit was fil ed on various grounds mentioned in Sec tion 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, including the ground that the defendant had made material alterations in the accommodation. The trial Court found hi favour of the plaintiff on the last mentioned ground, viz., that the appellant had made material altera tions in the accommodation and, consequently, decreed the suit for ejectment The Lower Appellate Court agreed with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. He has now come up in second appeal. The plaintiff-respondent purchased the accommodation by a sale deed dated May 30, 1966. In regard to the cons tructions, which according to him had the effect of making material alterations in the accommodation, the case of the plaintiff was that these constructions had been made by the appellant in 1967, i.e., after he had pur chased the accommodation. It was further mentioned in the plaint that the constructions had been made without his permission.

(2.) THE defence on this point set up by the appellant in brief was that these cons tructions had been made by him not in 1967, but in 1964 with the full knowledge and consent of the then owner of the accommo dation. It was also pleaded that the cons tructions did not amount to maiming any material alterations in the accommodation. The Trial Court accepted the version of the plaintiff and held that these constructions had been made in 1967. The Lower Appel late Court, however, agreed with the defence version that the constructions had been made in 1964. It, however, still maintained the decree for ejectment passed by the Trial Court on the view that the bar created by Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, having been lift ed in 1964, as a result of the defendant's making the constructions in question, which amounted to making material alterations in the accommodation, the right which accrued in favour of the then landlord to sue the ap pellant for his ejectment could be availed of even by the plaintiff, even though he was not the owner of the accommodation in 1964.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent, on the other hand, not only supported the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court on the question that the constructions made by the appellant amounted to material altera tions and that the respondent was entitled to institute the suit even though he purchased the accommodation in May, 1966, he also urged that the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court that the constructions were made in 1964 was erroneous in law.