MOOLI Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who is petitioner here, is challenging the decision of the Small Cause Court and of the revisional court confirming the earlier decision by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) A suit for ejectment was filed by opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 8 on the ground that the petitioner-tenant had made certain alterations in the rear portion of the kotha let out to him and had also raised some other construction on the plaintiff's adjoining land without his written permission which has caused substantial damage to the property and has also disfigured the same reducing its value. The defendant admitted having reconstructed the rear portion of the Kotha as the same was badly leaking and its condition had become very ruinous needing reconstruction. As regards the constructions made on the adjoining land, the dispute is subject to another suit which is pending between the parties in Second Appeal before this Court. One of the pleas by the defendant was that the portion where those constructions had been raised also forms part of his tenancy. Apart from the question of material alteration, the plaintiffs also based their suit on default in payment of rent.

(3.) BEFORE this clause can be applied, the plaintiff in order to succeed must establish the following :-