SHYAM LAL Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings in suit No. 622 of 1975 filed in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Agra by Dr. Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Sharad Chand Gupta against the petitioner Sham Lal for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages. The case set up in the plaint was that the petitioner is a tenant of a portion of premises No. 2743 (old), 27(10)(?)(new) situated at Haveli Bahadur Khan, Dhuliaga, Kanpur of which Dr. Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Sharad Chand Gupta were the landlords. It was alleged in the plaint that inspite of an agreement between the parties that the petitioner tenant will not raise any constructions and will not make any alterations in the property let out, the petitioner had made material alterations, constructions and structural changes in the premises in suit. It was further alleged that the petitioner had substantially damaged the premises in suit by misusing it and that he had also demolished the 'chajjas' of the Kothas shown by letters ABCDEFG as per the schedule attached to the plaint. It was further alleged that the petitioner had not left any passage through the Sehan to the godown shown by letters ABCDEFG and has also not left 4 ft. wide strip open in front of the said godown.

(2.) IN the plaint allegation was also made in regard to the inconsistent user of the 'phatak' as it was alleged that the petitioner was using it as a 'Gaddi' though it was to be used for passage only. The petitioner was also alleged to be a defaulter in the payment of rent.

(3.) THE Judge, Small Causes Court held that the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent, the petitioner had made material and substantial alterations in the property. He has also demolished the 'chajjas' of the kothas shown by letters ABCDEFG. The petitioner had also not left sehan to the godown shown by letters ABCDEFG and had also not left 4 ft. wide strip open in front of the godown. It was further held that the petitioner was using 'pathak' into a 'Gaddi'. It was further found that the petitioner had blocked the passage. The 'pathak' was being used as 'Gaddi'. In effect, it was found that the petitioner was using the premises in suit for the purpose for which it was not let out. The notice to quit was held to be legal and valid. In view of the above findings, the Judge, Small Causes Court by its judgment dated 13th August, 1982 decreed the suit for ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 1539/- on account of arrears of rent and pendente lite and further mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 8/- per mensum.