SHUBHAM AGARWAL Vs. PARITOSH BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dtd. 9/9/2019 passed by JSC Court whereby a decree of ejectment has been passed against the petitioner as well as the order dtd. 23/1/2025 whereby the revision has been dismissed.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondents landlord had let out the premises in question in favour of the petitioner as a tenant. Subsequently, it was alleged that the tenant had stopped paying rent and had also carried out alteration in the property in question without the permission of the landlord. In the suit filed by the respondents vide the plaint contained in Annexure - 4, in paragraph 7 there was a specific averment that alterations and additions were carried out in the shop in question which also damaged the shop and the value of the shop was diminished on account of the defendant tenant. A reply was filed by the petitioner to the said plaint in which a specific stand was taken that the answering defendant did not carry out any alteration or addition in the tenement nor damage the shop. In para 12 of the reply it was also stated that the defendant did not carry out any alteration and addition and the value of the shop has not been diminished. With regard to the arrears of rent, a plea was taken that the entire amount of rent due alongwith the interest has been paid so as to claim the benefit under Sec. 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.