LALITA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. A D J DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional court allowing a revision filed by the tenant under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act whereunder the decree of the Judge Small Causes Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit as well as water tax and cost of notice as claimed together with pendent lite and future mesne profit was modified dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment and decreeing the same only for an amount of Rs. 888. 33 p. for arrears of rent and water tax and Rs. 153 for water tax, the petitioner plaintiff has now approached this court seeking redress praying for the quash ing of the revisional order.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

(3.) THE trial court after an appraisal of evidence on the record came to the conclusion that initially a big hall of the premises in dispute had been let out to the defendant which was subsequently partitioned by him and was being utilised partly for residential purpose and partly for business purpose. It was found that the premises in dispute had been let out to the defendant for business purpose only, for which purpose it was being utilised by the previous tenant also. THE trial Court came to the conclusion that the partial conversion of the premises in dispute for its user as a residence was inconsistent to the purpose for which the defendant had been admitted to the tenancy and in the absence of the consent in writing as envisaged under Section 20 (2) (d) of the Act, the bar envisaged under Section 20 of the said Act in regard to the maintainability of the suit stood lifted. THE trial court also found that the premises in dispute had been let out at rental of Rs. 100/-per month as claimed by the plaintiff. It was also found that the defendant was also liable to pay water tax at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month with effect from 15- 9-1972 in view of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as claimed by the plaintiff. It was noticed at this stage that the provisions contained in Section 7 of the aforesaid Act clearly stipulate that the payment of water tax contemplated thereunder has to be treated as part of the rent in addition to the rent already agreed upon. THE trial court further recorded a clear cut finding that the defendant was not entitled to an adjustment of Rs. 320 towards white wash and repairs etc. in the absence of the permission and consent of the plaintiff. In view of the conclusions reached as above, the trial court found that the defendant was clearly a defaulter in payment of rent within the meaning of Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. THE trial court further came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute had been let out to the defendant alone and the crockery business in the name of U. P. Crockery house was started after letting had taken place. THE statement of the plaintiff in this regard was believed by the trial court.