MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. PARASRAM GOEL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.M. Mishra, for the petitioner-review applicant and Sri H.P. Dubey, for the respondents.

(2.) The writ petition was filed against the orders Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur dated 12.10.2012 decreeing SCC Suit No. 5 of 2007 filed by Parasram Goel and sons and others, for arrears rent and ejectment of the petitioner and Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Saharanpur dated 14.08.2014, dismissing SCC Revision No. 69 of 2012, filed by the petitioner and SCC Revision No. 65 of 2012 filed by Parasram Goel and sons and others against the aforesaid decree. The writ petition was dimissed by judgment dated 30.10.2014. Now the petitioner has filed this petition for review of judgment.

(3.) Parasram Goel and sons and others (the respondents) filed a suit (registered as SCC Suit No. 5 of 2007) under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute and arrears of rent and mesne profit. The plaint case was that the respondents were landlord of the shop in dispute and the petitioner was tenant in it on the monthly rent of Rs. 318/- + house tax and water tax. The petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent since 01.04.2005. In spite of demand of rent, the petitioner has not paid rent as such his tenancy was terminated through registered letter dated 02.12.2006 (served on 06.12.2006). In spite of service of notice, the petitioner has neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated shop in dispute, after expiry of the period of one month. The petitioner has un-authorisedly made material alteration in the shop in dispute without consent of landlord causing substantial damage in it. In the western side of the shop, there was a verandah but by making alteration, existence of verandah was taken away. In the western side of the shop, there were two doors, which were removed by the petitioner. In the eastern side of the shop, there was one small room constructed for using as a store but it was demolished and its door was removed. In the eastern side of the shop, there was some open land surrounded in boundary wall, in which there was a door in southern side but the petitioner has removed the door and raised permanent construction at this place and by raising the height of boundary wall, a tin shed construction has been raised over the open land. The eastern door of the shop was also removed and its eastern wall was demolished. Due to which, the shape of the shop was disfigured.