SWARAN DEVI Vs. MEENAKSHI GAUTAM ALIAS CHANDRAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated April 17, 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun, affirming the judgment of the Judge. Small Causes court, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondents was decreed for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi was owner of property no. 2, Ramlila Bazar, Dehradun. A portion of this property consisting of one room was in defendants' tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. THE plaintiff filed salt on the allegations that the defendant without permission of the plaintiff in writing or even orally constructed one room in front of the room under his tenancy and such construction amounts to structural alteration which diminished its value, utility and disfigured it. It was further alleged that the defendant caused substantial damage to the walls, roof and doors of the tenanted accommodation and thereby the defendant rendered himself liable for eviction as provided under section 20 (2) (b) and (c) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). THE plaintiff served him with a notice dated 15-6-75 and thereby determined the tenancy.

(3.) THE courts below have recorded a finding that the petitioners were tenants of one room. In front of the said room there was a chabutra. THE tenants constructed a room by raising walls over the chabutra in front of the tenanted room in May 1978. THEy placed tin shed roof over the newly constructed walls THE tenants thus added one room to their tenanted accommodation. THE courts below have recorded this finding on the basis of the evidence on record. THE tenants in their written statement had denied that they raised any construction. THE courts below on perusal of the evidence on record did not believe the version of the defendant. THE tenant had sent a reply to the notice (paper no. 49-C) and that revealed that he had constructed the existing wall. His version that he only constructed the wall on the old existing wall was disbelieved by the courts below. Admittedly, no permission in writing was obtained by the tenants from the plaintiff to construct the new wall. THE Courts below considered the statement of the tenant Sri Vilayati Ram and other witness Sri Manhey Ram THEre is no illegality in the findings recorded by the trial court.