RAFIQ ALIAS MOHAMMED RAFIQ Vs. RAJJAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant s petition questioning the validity of the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2007 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Agra in JSCC Suit No. 58 of 2005 as affirmed in Revision No. 52 of 2007.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that petitioner is tenant of property No. 38/62 Idgah Katghar District Agra on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month besides water tax. As per landlord petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and notice was given on 18.11.2003 and as rent in question has not been paid and as material alteration has been done, JSCC Suit No. 58 of 2005 was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground that petitioner has been in arrears of rent and petitioner has materially altered the constructions and have diminished the value of suit tenement. Written statement has been filed to the said JSCC suit and plaint allegations were denied. Evidence was led from both sides and thereafter Judge Small Cause Court on 14.08.2007 decreed the said suit holding therein that on the first date of hearing amount as specified under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has not been deposited. Against the said order Revision was filed and Revisional Court affirmed the aforesaid finding and further Revisional Court also proceeded to mention that material alteration has been made without taking permission from the landlord. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that on the first date of hearing entire amount in question has been deposited as such tenant-petitioner is fully entitled to get the benefit as envisaged under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and further Revisional Court has totally transgressed and over stepped its jurisdiction by mentioning that tenant-petitioner had made material alteration without recording any finding of fact that said material alteration has not at all diminished the value of the property, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed.