UDAI BHAN GUPTA Vs. HARI SHANKER BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs land -lords filed a suit for ejectment of the Defendants on the grounds inter alia that they were in arrears of rent; that they had made structural alterations, in the building causing substantial damage; that they had changed the nature of the tenancy; and that the alterations had diminished the utility of the building and hence they were liable to ejectment.

(2.) THESE allegations were denied by the Defendants on the ground inter alia that they had not made material alterations in the building and that the said alterations had not diminished its utility. The Court of the Judge Small Causes decreed the suit of the Plaintiff for possession and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1955.16 paise, and also for Rs. 346/ - as mesne profit and costs. The trial Court recorded findings of fact in favour of the Plaintiff on the issues arising in the case vide its judgment dated 12th December, 1980.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Plaintiffs -Respondents has taken a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision is barred by limitation. He has submitted that for filing a revision against the judgment and decree of the Judge Small Causes the period of limitation prescribed is only 30 days; whereas the instant revision has been filed much later. This contention is opposed by Counsel for the Defendant -applicants, who has cited a Single Judge decision of this Court in support of his submission. This legal controversy is very material as it is bound to decide the fate of so many cases pending and which may be filed in future. I shall, therefore, discuss the question in detail.