Bachchu Lal vs Smt. Basso Begum (D.) through L.Rs.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—The landlord Respondent Smt. Basso Begum instituted a Suit No. 505 of 1999 Smt. Basso Begum v. Bachchu Lal, in the Court of Judge Small Cause for decree of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the premises in question, i.e., portion of house No. 98/182 (new number 98/182C), wherein the Petitioner-tenant is said to have been carrying on business on the shop @ Rs. 53 per month as rent. The tenancy of the Petitioner consisted of two rooms. The other room has also been let out by the landlord @ Rs. 52 per month.

It appears from the record that the stand of the landlord is that the tenant did not pay the rent from 1.9.1992 to 31.10.1999 and has also raised unauthorized constructions and dug the floor three feet deep which has adversely affected the foundation of the building and has decreased its utility. The tenant is also said to have erected a wall and converted the front portion of the tenancy in two shops by which the value of the building has further diminished on account of material alterations. This compelled the landlord to send a notice dated 15.11.1999 which was served upon the tenant on 16.11.1999.

The suit was contested by the tenant by filing written statement denying the entire allegations made in the plaint of the landlord. It has been asserted therein that he is depositing rent u/s 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Case No. 700/70 of 1994 between Bachchu Lal v. Basso Begum, as the landlord has refused to accept the rent and he has neither made any alteration in the building by digging the building in question nor has raised constructions diminishing the value of the building. It has also been denied that he has opened any window in the wall of the shop in question nor has forcibly occupied any portion of the building in any manner whatsoever.

The contention of the Petitioner''s counsel is that the tenant has deposited the entire rent on the first date of hearing in compliance of Section 20 Sub-clause (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hence the suit filed by the landlord deserves to be dismissed. He also appears to have filed an application u/s 28 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which has been registered as Case No. 152 of 1999 Bachchu Lal v. Basso Begum, inter alia, on the ground that he is ready to bear the expenses of the repairs, which are necessary to be carried out for the proper habitation in the accommodation in question as the landlord is not permitting him to carry out the repairs.

The allegations of the tenant taken in the written statement were rebutted by the landlord.

The courts below after appraisal of the evidence, oral and documentary, decreed the suit for ejectment from the accommodation in dispute vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 and also directed the tenant to pay Rs. 53 as damages from the date of filing the suit aforesaid till his ejectment.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the J.S.C.C., the tenant preferred Rent Revision No. 8 of 2006 u/s 25 of the Judge Small Causes Court. An amendment application also appears to have been filed by the tenant, in which objections and replications were filed by parties. The Addl. District Judge after hearing the parties on the amendment application fixed 17.8.2007 for decision of the entire case alongwith amendment application and dismissed the revision on the said date which has given cause for filing this writ petition challenging the orders of the courts below on the ground that the revision has been decided in cursory manner without adverting to the grounds raised by the tenant and the questions involved in the case in correct perspective.

It is submitted that the revisional court has recorded finding on merits of the case without affording reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner or his counsel for arguments of the revision on merits. As regards the decree is concerned, it is contended by the counsel for the Petitioner that the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed without considering the provisions of Section 20 Sub-section (2) of Sub-clause (c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 illegally reaching to the conclusion that the Petitioner himself admitted the factum of material alterations in the accommodation in question. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the finding in this respect by the J.S.C.C. are based on no evidence.

Per contra counsel for the Respondent has submitted that both the courts below have on the basis of evidence and material on record have given concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner has not only made material alterations but has also made constructions which have diminished the value of the building.

He submits that there is ample evidence on record which has been considered by the courts below. This contention of the counsel for the Respondents is not rebutted by the Petitioner''s counsel. No illegality or infirmity in the order is shown.

In the facts and circumstances stated above and taking into consideration the fact that both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that material alterations have been made by the Petitioner tenant diminishing the value of the building in dispute, which could not be assailed by the counsel for the Petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.