ROHIT RASTOGI Vs. VTH A D J GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner -tenants against the order passed by revisional Court dated 15th October, 1998 whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision filed by the landlord and decreed the suit filed by the landlord after setting the order passed by the trial Court.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent -landlord served a notice on the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners are in arrears of rent for one month and that they have not paid the amount of water tax amounting to Rs. 326/ - for the month of September 1985 and that the notice are also in arrears of house and water tax amount to Rs. 320.60 which they have not paid. The notice goes to say that the petitioner -tenants have materially altered the shop in question without permission in writing of the landlord by removing its wooden door and fixing an iron shutter which is contrary to sanctioned map of the local authority and thus the aforesaid action of the tenants will come within the definition of material alteration which made the petitioners liable for ejectment. The notice therefore, was given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act. While terminating the tenancy it was directed that the notice should vacate the premises within 30 days and also deposit the arrears of house and water tax, failing which the action under law will be taken against the tenants. The tenants submitted reply to the aforesaid notice denying the allegations made therein. It is also pointed out that the tenants and Sri Om Prakash Rastogi, the father of the petitioner, have not been served with the notice. So far as arrears of rent for the months of September and October 1985 is concerned the same is being sent totalling Rs. 130/ - by money order and house tax and water tax amounting to Rs. 185.04 from the month of April 1983 to March 1985 is also being paid by money order. Ultimately the landlord filed suit being suit No. 85 of 1996 before the Judge Small Cause Courts. On the similar allegations as have been raised in the reply to the notice, the petitioner -tenants filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations stating therein that there is no alteration what to say of material alteration and there is no rent due as stated in the plaint. It is also stated by the tenants (defendants of the suit) that the shop was originally let out to the father of the petitioners and after his death all the heirs of Om Prakash Rastogi (deceased) inherited the tenancy as the premises was let out for non -residential purposes. It was also stated that the suit is barred by provisions of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The trial Court, after exchange of pleadings and after adducing evidence by the parties, framed the following issues:

(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby the landlord preferred a revision being Civil Revision No. 246 of 1994 before the Judge Small Cause Courts under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which has been allowed by the revisional Court and revisional Court passed the order after setting the judgment of the trial Court and directed that the suit filed by the landlord stands decreed. It is this order which is under challenge by means of this writ petition by the tenants, inter alia on various grounds.