NARENDRA SINGH ALIAS KUDDU Vs. VISHAMBHAR NATH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed by the petitioners who are the tenant of the accommodation in question challenge the orders dated 6 -4 -1998 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition) passed by the trial Court and the order passed by the revisional Court dated 20 -11 -2004 (Annexure -11 to the writ petition). The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:

(2.) THAT the landlord -plaintiff after serving the notice determining the tenancy of the petitioners filed a suit being Suit No. 105 of 1984 for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground firstly that the petitioners are in arrears of rent and has not paid the same inspite of notice being served on him and secondly that the petitioners have made structural alteration in the accommodation in dispute which has diminished its value and utility. The trial Court after exchange of the pleadings and evidence on record, by the judgment and order dated 26 -3 -1990 decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby petitioner preferred a revision being SCC Revision No. 41 of 1990 which was allowed by the revisional Court and the matter was remanded back to be decided afresh in the light of the observations made in the order of the revisional Court. On remand the trial Court again decreed the suit by the order dated 17 -11 -1992 against which the petitioner preferred a revision being SCC Revision No. 148 of 1992. The revisional Court again allowed the revision and the matter was remanded to the trial Court to be decided in the light of the observations made by the revisional Court. The trial Court after remand again by the order dated 6 -4 -1998 decreed the suit on the ground of material alteration. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground of arrears of rent and ejectment on that basis. Against this, petitioner -tenant preferred a revision being SCC Revision No. 60 of 1998 which has been dismissed by the revisional Court by the order dated 20 -11 -2004. Thus, this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 1984 ARC (1) page 207, Murli Dhar and Anr. v. IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura and Anr., Para 5 thereof is relevant which is reproduced below: