RAJESH MAKHIJA Vs. MUKTI SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This revision is under Section 25 of Provin cial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-2-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 1 ). Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 17 of 1999 whereby the Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent at ihe rate of Rs. 826 per month till the delivery of vacant possession is handed ove' to the plaintiff, has been decreed.

(2.) THIS is defendant's revision who was tenant of Premises No. 25/2 Mail Road, Kanpur on a monthly rent of Rs. 826; on which the Plaintiff opposite party is landlady. The landlady brought SCC Suit No. 17 of 1999 for ejectment of the defendant tenarfeon the ailegations that the defendant took shop in Premises No. 25/2 The Mall Road, Kan pur. The shop consists of two compart ments. The defendant illegally and without written consent of the landlady got demolished the intervening wall of the two shops and constructed a "duchhatti" in the shop and also lowered down the floor of the shop by 2 feet and extended the shop towards east by three feet and constructed a Pakka Chabutra and fixed a Shutter, whereby the shop has been disfigured and it gives an ugly look. The constructions and structure alterations made by the defendant in the building has diminished its value, utility and dis figured it. Besides the tenanted shop of the defendant there is a third shop of the landlady in the tenancy of Smt. San-gita Makhija. The defendant also got demolished the intervening wall of his shop and the shop of tenant Sangita Makhija, resultantly all the three shops have been changed and converted into one shop.

(3.) IT is no longer in dispute that the defendant has carried out following ad ditions, modification or structural chan ges in the premises in question, they are; (i) defendant removed the interven ing wall of his tenanted shop which con sists of two compartment, (ii) lowered down the floor of the shop by two feet; (iii) constructed a "duchhatti" in the dis puted shop. There is dispute in be tween the parties about existence of the earlier duchhatti. The case of the landlady is that the defendant constructed a Duchhatti for the first time. On the other hand according to the defendant tenant he has replaced the old wooden Ducchatti with a new Pakki Duchhatti (iv) the tenant has placed gir ders etc. in place of wooden Beam, (v) Extended the shop towards east by three feet by constructing a Pakka Chabutra and placing a Shutter and (vi) defendant has removed common wall in between his tenanted shop and of third shop in the tenancy of Sangita Makhija. Thereby the tenant has converted three shops in to one.