VIJAY PRAKASH Vs. MUNSHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 24.3.2007 and 6.12.2007, Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioners are tenant of the disputed property. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit before the Judge Small Causes Court against the petitioners for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground of default as well as material alterations diminishing the value of the property. The Judge Small Causes Court after considering the evidence on record and after considering the Commissioner's report for which no objection was ever filed by the petitioners', impliedly the petitioners have admitted that they have made the constructions, has recorded a finding that in view of the Commissioner's report, the petitioners have constructed three Pucca walls and upon the kitchen, they have made Puccha roof, taking in to consideration the facts and circumstance relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I,.R. 2005, S.C. Page 240, British Motor Car Co. v. M.C. Saggi has held that if such type of construction has been made, that will come under the definition of material alteration and has decreed the suit vide its judgment and order dated 24.3.2006. The revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed confirming the finding recorded by the Judge Small Causes Court.

(3.) THE first argument raised on behalf of the petitioners' is that the burden was upon the landlord to prove that any violation of Section 20 (2) (b) (c) and (d) of Act XIII of 1972 has been done. Admittedly, the respondent-landlord has not appeared before the Court for making a statement regarding any construction or material alteration made by the petitioners. Section 20 (2) of the Act is being reproduced below: