SHANKER LAL Vs. JAWAHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant, who is aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court, whereby the revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and affirmed the decree passed by the trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-landlord, respondent in this writ petition filed a suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra being suit No. 55 of 1997 (Jawahar Lal v. Shanker Lal) for the arrears of rent and ejectment. In short, the plaint case is that the plaintiff is the owner of shop in question and defendant was tenant of the aforesaid shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- per month. The defendant is further liable to pay Rs. 35/- per month towards the water tax. The defendant has not paid the rent since 24th December, 1994 and further that the defendant has sub-let the shop without permission in writing from the landlord or the District Magistrate in favour of Parmanand and his sons, namely, Gopi Chand, Raj Kumar, Shital Das, Sunder Lal and Kanhaiya Lal. Further ground taken by the landlord is that the defendant without permission in writing has demolished the eastern wall of the shop in question and thereby materially altered the premises sub-let to him, which has diminished the value and utility of the shop and because of the aforesaid material alteration the plaintiff-landlord has suffered a loss of Rs. 15,000/-. A notice for the aforesaid reason has been given by the plaintiff dated 12th January, 1997 and requested the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the shop in question. The aforesaid notice was served on the tenant on 17th January, 1997, but the tenant has not complied with the direction issued by the aforesaid notice, thus, the suit in question was filed. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint by adding one ground to the effect that since the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff, which has not been denied by the plaintiff, therefore this is the additional ground for ejectment against the defendant. The defendant contested the aforesaid suit and admitted that he is the tenant and also admitted that he is tenant at the rate of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 35/- per month. The defendant-tenant denied that he has altered the shop in question, which may be covered by the phrase material alteration. The defendant has further submitted that the eastern wall of the shop in question was fallen down, which has been reconstructed for the purposes of safety and security of the shop in question. The tenant has denied that the shop in question has been sub-let to anybody, including the persons mentioned in the plaint. The defendant-tenant has denied this also that he has denied the title of the plaintiff. In this regard, the defendant submitted that the original tenant was the father of the defendant Kewal Ram and after the death of Kewal Ram, his five sons are carrying on the business in the aforesaid shop as they inherited the tenancy jointly. The defendant has admitted that Parmanand and his three sons and Topan Das and his two sons are carrying on business jointly, along with the defendant in the shop in question, which is a business of joint Hindu Family. The defendant has also admitted the service of the notice and stated that after receive of the notice, he deposited the entire rent by Money Order, which has been refused by the plaintiff-landlord, but the plaintiff has declined to receive the Money Order, therefore, the entire rent, water tax and misc. cost etc. were deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing in compliance of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, it is submitted by the petitioner-tenant that he is entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which shall here-in-after referred to as the 'Act'. The defendant also submitted that the suit is barred by the principle of Estoppel and Acquisance.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues, which read thus: