- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, petitioners pray for is suance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 1-4-2000 whereby suit filed by the contesting respondent for ejectment was decreed against the petitioners and the order dated 7-4-2000 whereby revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioners hap pened to be the tenants of the building in question. The tenancy of the petitioners was terminated by a notice sent by the contesting respondent No. 3 and there after suit was filed for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of material alteration. The suit was contested by the petitioners pleading that the notice served upon them was illegal and that the building was not materially altered, that in any view, the value of building was not decreased by the alteration made by them. The trial Court framed relevant issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The parties thereafter, produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. The trial Court recorded findings on the relevant issues in favour of the contesting respondent/landlord and decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 1-4-2000. Challenging the validity of the said decree, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below. The Court below also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 7-4-2000, hence the present petition. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently urged that the notice served upon the petitioner was invalid and on the basis of the same, suit could not be decreed. It was also urged that on account of alleged alteration made in the building the value of the building was not decreased rather it was increased. It was also urged that the provisions of the Act were not applicable in the present case in as much as the land where the building stands, happens to be Nazul land. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 3 sup ported the judgments and decrees/orders passed by the Courts below. It was urged that the findings are concurrent findings of fact which are based on the relevant evidence on record, therefore the writ petition has got no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) 1 have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the par ties and also perused the record. So far as the validity of the notice is concerned I have perused the notice in question, which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-I to the writ petition. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said notice. The tenancy of the petitioners was terminated in accordance with law. So far as the question of material alteration is concerned, the two Courts below have recorded the concurrent find ings against the petitioners. It has been held that the petitioners have materially altered the building in question on ac count of which the value of the building was increased. The said finding is based on the relevant evidence on record.;