CHHOTEY LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, BANDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by landlady respondent No. 3 Smt. Ram Janki. The suit was registered I as SCC suit No. 42 of 1975 on the file of JSCC/Munsif Banda. Eviction was sought under Clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sec. 20(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was alleged in the plaint that tenant had caused damage to the building made material alterations, sublet portion of the building in dispute and used part of the building in dispute for inconsistent purpose. The trial Court I decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and suit for eviction was decreed on 30.8.1979. Against the said judgment and decree, revision was filed which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Banda on 12.2.1980. The revisional Court held that landlord failed to prove existence of any of the aforesaid grounds. I The said judgment of the revisional Court was challenged by the landlady through writ petition No. 5275 of 1980. The writ petition was decided on 18.11.1983. The finding of the revisional Court in respect of inconsistent user was affirmed and it was held that there was no inconsistent user. In respect of other three grounds of eviction, judgment of the revisional Court was set-aside and matter was remanded to the revisional Court to decide the points pertaining to the grounds mentioned under clauses (b)(c) and (e) of Sec. 20(2) of the Act afresh keeping in mind the limitations of revisional Court to interfere in the findings I of the fact as indicated in Division Bench authority of this Court in Lakshmi Kishan Vs. H.P. Shukla 1981 ARC 545. After remand revisional Court heard the matter again and dismissed the revision (SCC Revision No. 28 of 1979) through judgment and order dated 29.10.1984. The revisional Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court in respect of damage to the building, material alteration' I and sub-letting. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment of b the revisional Court dated 29.10.1984 and the judgment of the trial Court dated I 30.8.1979.

(2.) In respect of material alteration (Section 20(2)(c), it was found that tenant himself admitted that level of the courtyard had been raised and Kuchcha wall of the room had been replaced by Pucca wall. It was also found that the inner wall of the outer room was extended, reducing the area of the courtyard from 7 feet to 4 feet. Both the Courts below found that these constructions amounted to such constructions, which diminished the value and utility of the building to be used as residential portion. Due to raising the level of the courtyard the water entered in the inner room during rainy seasons. Sahan was also reduced to a gallery of a narrow width of 3 feet hence it could not be used as courtyard at all. Raising of Pucca wall at the place of Kuchcha wall may not diminish the value or utility of the building but drastically reducing the area of Sahan so that it no more remains capable of being used as Sahan and raising the level of Sahan resulting in entry of water in rooms during rainy seasons certainly amount to such alterations which diminish the value and utility of the accommodation in dispute as residential accommodation.

(3.) Therefore no fault can be found in the findings of the Courts below regarding material alteration.