MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. THE IIND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act whereunder allowing the same the revisional court modified the decree passed by the trial court and the suit was also decreed for the relief of the defendant's ejectment from the building in dispute with a direction to vacate and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff within a period of one month, the defendant -petitioner has now approached this Court for redress seeking reversal of the judgment and decree passed in revision proceedings. The controversy involved in the present case now stands confined to the question as to whether the ground envisaged under Section 20(2)(c) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) was available to the plaintiff for maintaining the suit for the eviction of the tenant -petitioner from the building in dispute.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the notice dated 9 -2 -1981 had come up with a case that the defendant had by constructing a partition wall had converted two rooms let out to him into four rooms and had further constructed in the court yard a room which amounted to material structural alterations which diminished its value and utility and further disfigured it. In her claim, so far as the question relating to the structural alterations in the building were concerned it has been asserted that the defendant had raised a partition wall and converted two rooms into four and also raised a room in the court -yard. It was also asserted that these alterations had been effected without the consent of the plaintiff as well as its utility. In the written statement filed by the petitioner -defendant the allegations regarding structural alterations were denied. It appears from the record that the trial court, taking into considerations the pleadings of the parties, issued a commission which inspected the premises and reported that a wall DC denoted in the map prepared by him was a permanent partition wall with which two rooms had been converted into four rooms. The Commissioner also reported that the defendant had constructed a tin -shed in the court -yard which had permanent walls. In his deposition before the trial court Man Pal Gupta (P.W. -1) had stated that two rooms had been converted into four rooms and in the court -yard besides Nali, a room had been constructed. Ahilya Devi (P.W. -2) deposed before the trial court that at the time when the building had been let out there was no construction in the court -yard and there were only two rooms in the building. She asserted that the defendant had by raising constructions converted two rooms into four rooms and further constructed a room in the court yard and also a kitchen and a bath -room. Similar was the statement made by Jagdish Prasad (P.W. -3) who had asserted that in view of the construction of the room in the courtyard, the utility of the building got diminished and it was disfigured.

(3.) THE revisional court however, came to the conclusion that from the entire evidence on the record it stood well established that by constructing the partition wall DC two spacious rooms had been converted into four small rooms and the accommodation with tin -shed in the court -yard had also been constructed by the defendant. After referring to various decisions of this Court the revisional court further came to the conclusion that the conversion of the big rooms into small portions and raising of a tin -shed room in the court -yard would amount to material alteration within the meaning of Section 20(2)(c) of the Act and these structural material alterations had been effected without enhancing the value of the building and utility but disfigured the same. The revisional court recorded a finding that the aforesaid facts stood abundantly established. Consequently, the decree passed by the trial court was modified as indicated hereinbefore.