SYED MAHFOOZUL HASNAIN Vs. SHAHJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff -landlord's writ petition, who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, J.P. Nagar, whereby it has allowed SCC Revision No. 6 of 2001 preferred by defendants -respondents against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2001 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Amroha in SCC Suit No. 25 of 1993 and the suit, which was decreed by Trial Court, has been dismissed by setting aside Trial Court's judgement. In other words, petitioner -landlord though succeeded in Trial Court but lost in Revisional Court, hence has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner, Syed Mahfuzul Hasnain instituted SCC Suit No. 25 of 1993 in the Court of Judge Small Cause, Amroha (earlier it was in District Moradabad but subsequently now part of District J.P. Nagar), impleading Mansoor Ahamd and Smt. Shahjahan, daughter of Mansoor Ahmad as defendants no. 1 and 2, alleging that plaintiff has purchased property in dispute from its erstwhile owner, Ram Swaroop on 01.06.1963. The defendants are tenants in a part of aforesaid house. In 19971 -72 some improvement/ renovation was made in the house including the part which is in tenancy of defendants. As a result thereof, rent was increased from Rs. 2/ - per month to Rs. 15 per month and then it was increased to Rs. 25/ - per month in the year 1972. The defendants have altered let out accommodation substantially.

(3.) THE plaintiff instituted injunction Suit No. 321 of 1988 against construction being made by defendants in which Munsif, Amroha, passed an injunction order dated 19.07.1988 directing defendants to maintain status quo. Subsequently, defendants filed a false Suit No. 357 of 1990 so as to enable themselves to make some alteration in the building and sought an injunction against landlord, which is pending. However, since defendants have made structural alteration in the let out building causing reduction of utility and value thereof, therefore, they are liable for ejectment. It was further pleaded that since first assessment of building was made in 1997, therefore, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") was not applicable. The other grounds are default in payment of rent and sub -letting. It was also said that vide notice dated 16.08.1993 demand of arrears of rent was made but defendants failed and their tenancy stood terminated.