SHADI RAM Vs. JUDGE SMALL CAUSES COURT MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-tenant-defendant who is tenant of accommodation in question which are shops was required to be vacated by the respondent-landlord-plaintiff and for this purpose a suit was filed before the Judge Small Cause Court (Munsif), Bijnor in 1982 for the purpose of recovery of rent and damages from the petitioner-tenant and its ejectment from the shops on rent @ Rs.31/- per month as it had failed to pay the rent w.e.f. February 1982 and since it had also not paid the due taxes in spite of notice. The other allegation was that the defendants had also disfigured the property in question by demolishing certain part of which was in its tenancy by making material and substantial changes such as raising and lowering the hight of the flooring of the shops and putting the door on the wall in between the two shops, removing one door and chaukhat and demolishing the permanent chabutara and misappropriating the debris and that the tenant had removed the 'Sardal' and replaced it by beam/lintel and laid slab in the northern and southern wall which not only caused damage to the shops but also caused substantial damage to the upper storey weakening the construction and diminishing its value. The suit was contested by the petitioner denying all the allegations therein and stated that the changes brought in that the plastering of the wall and change of the doors and putting the iron shutters was necessary repair made on the instruction of the plaintiff-landlord. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, recorded evidence and after hearing the parties decreed the plaintiff's suit partly.

(3.) The petitioner-defendant-tenant being aggrieve by the decree filed a revision before the lower appellate Court. The revisional Court after hearing the parties and perusal of the entire record came to the conclusion that the finding of the trial Court was not without evidence nor it could be termed as perverse and, therefore, the findings could not be set aside in revision though it held that the claim of the plaintiff for damages could not be allowed in law by the Judge Small Causes Court/Munsif but the suit as such could not be thrown away as a whole but such objections were not taken as preliminary objection so that the plaintiff could have had an opportunity to forego or strike of the said reliefs and that the trial Court had rightly not allowed such damages. No plea of multifariousness was taken by the defendant at the trial stage in its written statement and, therefore, it could not be taken at the revisional stage. The revisional Court finding no force, dismissed the revision with costs.