HARNAM DAS Vs. IIND A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State as well as Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

(2.) The petitioner tenant aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional court dated 16th November, 1988, whereby the revisional court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit filed by the landlord for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that there is material alteration, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the finding regarding material alteration is perverse and based on a report, which cannot be said to have been proved according to the evidence, which is inadmissible and the said report was submitted by the Commissioner in connection with some other suit, he, therefore, submitted that this report is inadmissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the evidence, which has been relied upon is inadmissible, as such this argument deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. However, to me it appears that the ground of material alteration is not sufficient for ejectment of the tenant even if the finding is that the tenant has materially altered the accommodation in question. In view of the provision of Section 20 (2)(d) of the Act, this material alteration is of such a nature, which diminishes the value of the accommodation in question. There is neither any pleading, nor any finding by the revisional court, in this regard. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the revisional court deserves to be quashed.