RAM JANKI Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the landlord of an accommodation which was let out to respondent No. 3 Chhotey Lal. A suit was instituted by the petitioner for ejectment of respondent No. 3 and for arrears of rent etc. The case of the petitioner, inter alia, was that the respondent No. 3 had demolished a wall of accommodation in his tenancy and had also raised the level of the courtyard and consequently the level of one of the adjacent rooms had become lower than the court-yard with the result that rain water now flows inside the adjacent 6 rooms causing damage to it. His case further was that after demolishing the wall as aforesaid the respondent No. 3 constructed another wall at different place in the courtyard whereby he reduced the wid of the courtyard and after construction of the courtyard was now only about three feet wide. It was also the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 had constructed a chabutra on a portion of the accommodation in question on its other side towards the road and sublet it to one Sheo Narain. Ejectment was sought also on the ground that even though the accommodation in question had let out to the respondent No. 3 for residential purpose, he had also set up a small shop for the selling tea and snacks. According to the petitioner clauses (b), (d) and (e) of Section 20(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) were attracted and the respondent No. 3 was liable to be evicted. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 3 but was decreed by the Judge, Small Causes accepting the case of the petitioner. Against the decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes a revision was filed by the respondent No. 3 before District Judge under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It was transferred to the Ist Additional District Judge, Banda respondent No. 1, who allowed it on 12th February, 1980. It is this order passed by the respondent No. 1 which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) IT was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 does not appear to have applied his mind at all to the requirements of the Act or even to the reasons recorded by the Judge Small Causes in support of his findings of the various issues raised before him.

(3.) HOWEVER , in regard to the findings recorded by the Judge, Small Causes that the provisions of clauses (b), (c) and (e) of Section 20(2) of the Act were also attracted to the facts of the present case I am of opinion that the Additional District Judge has not applied his mind either to the relevant evidence produced in this behalf or the legal position as enunciated in various decisions of his Court. First, such of the findings which had been recorded not be reversed by the Additional District Judge in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act except in the circumstances and in the manner provided for in this behalf by a Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Kishan and another v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545 (D.B.). In regard to clause (b) of Section 20(2) of the Act, namely, that the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building the Judge Small Causes had held that on account of various acts committed by the respondent No. 3 including the demolition of a wall the provisions of the said clause were attracted. He had further passed a decree for the recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages. The Additional District Judge has reversed even that decree without giving any cogent reason for disagreeing with the view taken by the Judge, Small Causes in this behalf. Likewise as regards the question that the respondent No. 3 had made constructions or structural alternations in the building as were likely to demolish its value or utility or to disfigure, the Additional District Judge has committed a manifest error of law in reversing the findings of the Judge, Small Causes without adverting to the legal position in this behalf.