KALIDEEN Vs. NATHU RAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) LANDLORD-RESPONDENT after purchasing the property in dispute in 2005 instituted a suit for eviction against tenant-petitioner in the form of S. C. C. Suit no. 45 of 2006. Property in dispute is a shop, the rent of which is Rs. 150/- per month. Ground of eviction mentioned in the plaint was default in payment of rent and material alteration. In respect of default, the Trial Court held that as on the first date of hearing of the suit, i. e. 29. 3. 2006, tenant had deposited rs. 7000/-, which included entire rent along with interest and cost of the suit, hence he was entitled to benefit of section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In respect of material alteration, the Trial Court held that defendant-tenant had lowered the level of the land in front of the shop in dispute and replaced the door with iron shutter and these changes were covered by section 20 (2) (b) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered by J. S. C. C. , Kanpur Nagar in the suit through judgment and decree dated 8. 2. 2007. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant-petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision No. 31 of 2007, Sri Kalideen Gupta v. Nathuram gupta. Revision was dismissed by 16th A. D. J. , Kanpur Nagar on 29. 5. 2007, hence this writ petition. Section 20 (2) (b) of the Act is quoted below :-"20 (2) (b) that the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building;"

(3.) SUPREME Court in "g. Reghunathan v. K. V. Varghese, 1988 2 ARC (SC) 243" has held that closing door and window by bricks, lowering level of wall, cutting the rafters, erecting the pillars and fixing the rolling shutters does not amount to material alteration.