KANHAIYA LAL Vs. CHHOTEY LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the two orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jaunpur. Under the order dated 17-11-1986 the petitioner landlord was ordered to make the accommodation wind proof and water proof. Under the second impugned order dated 6-2-1987 the tenant has been permitted to carry out repairs so as to make the accommodation water proof and wind proof and has been made entitled to deduct two years rent.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the two impugned orders on the ground that the entire accommodation had fallen down and there was thus no question of making the accommodation wind proof and water proof. I have examined the two impugned orders and in my opinion it is not a fit case for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had come with a plea that the respondent applicant was not his tenant. From the evidence on the record it has been found that the applicant respondent was in possession of the premises in dispute. No evidence has been filed before the courts below to show that the petitioner had taken any proceedings for the ejectment of the applicant respondents. The court below on the basis of the evidence led before it had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was bound to make the accommodation wind proof and waterproof. The tenant has now been ordered to make it by getting necessary repairs done and has been allowed only Rs. 240.00 i.e. two years rent. The order passed by the two courts below are just and not liable to be set aside.

(3.) For the reasons stated above the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.