ABDUL HAMID Vs. NINTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Suit No. 75 of 1976 was filed for the eviction and for arrears of rent against the petitioner. The said suit was decreed. The petitioner filed a revision which was allowed and the decree of eviction and for arrears was set aside by a judgment dated 18-4-1978. The landlord did not pursue the matter and the matter become final. It transpires that the landlord issued a notice dated 17-10-1983, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, determining the tenancy on the ground of arrears of rent w. e. f. 21-3- 1973 and, on the ground of making material alteration in the building by construction of rooms thereby diminishing its value and utility. Upon the expiry of the period of notice, the landlord instituted a suit. The trial Court, dismissed the suit, on the ground that there was no default and also on the ground that there was no construction in the tenanted premises and that the construction so made was outside the tenanted premises which did not diminish the value of the building.

(2.) AGGRIEVED, the landlord filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which was allowed by the impugned judgment and the suit was decreed for eviction on the ground that the petitioner had made material alteration in the building which had diminished its value. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even otherwise, it was a case of no evidence or inadmissible evidence, inasmuch as, the findings arrived at by the revisional Court was based on surmises and conjectures and that, in any case, the construction alleged to have been made was outside the tenanted premises which cannot be made a ground for eviction under Section 20 (2) (c) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).