SUKHLAL Vs. SMT. SHANTI DEVI BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party against the defendant-applicant for recovery of arrears of rent and his ejectment from the premises in dispute, on the grounds as contemplated by Sec. 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 that the defendant-applicant was in default of payment of rent of more than three months and that he had made material alterations in the premises in question without permission. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant, the lower revisional court affirmed the trial courts decree. Aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this revision under Sec. 115 C.P.C.

(2.) Briefly, facts giving rise to this revision are as follows. Lala Ram Narain Garg was the owner and landlord of the disputed premises which included a shop and a Chabutra situate in front of it in the city of Kanpur. In March, 1955, the shop and Chabutra were let out to the defendant under an allotment order issued under Sec. 7 (2) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a rent of Rs. 15 per mensem. At the commencement of tenancy, Lala Ram Narain Garg permitted the defendant to construct a shop on the chabutra at his cost and the defendant agreed to pay enhanced rent from Rs. 15 to Rs. 100 per mensem. The defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 100 as security with the landlord. In pursuance to the agreement the defendant erected a shop on the chabutra. He continued to pay Rs. 100 per mensem as rent with effect from 1-4-1955. Lala Ram Narain Garg transferred the property in dispute to Smt. Shanti Devi, plaintiff-opposite party under a registered sale-deed executed on 26th May, 1966. The plaintiff-opposite party, filed suit for the defendants ejectment on two main grounds, firstly that the defendant was in arrears of rent for a period of more than three months and in spite of notice of demand, he had failed to pay the same, and secondly, the defendant had made material alterations in the premises by constructing a shop on the chabutra without permission.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit. He denied that he was a defaulter. He asserted that he had remitted rent to the plaintiff, but on his refusal he had deposited the same in the court of Munsif (City), Kanpur in proceedings under Sec. 7-C of the Act. He further pleaded that at the time the premises in dispute were let out to him, Lala Ram Narain Garg had permitted him to construct the shop on the chabutra and in lieu thereof, the defendant had agreed to enhancement of rent from Rs. 15 to Rs. 100. The plaintiff who was transferee from Lala Ram Narain Garg was not entitled to maintain the suit for decree of ejectment on the ground of material alteration. In the alternative, the defendant further pleaded that the construction made by him did not amount to material alteration.