R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages filed by the petitioners and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Court below dated 25.7.1985 whereby the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed in part by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Mirzapur and order dated 9.12.1987 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Court below.
(2.) It appears that the petitioners filed a suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court for ejectment of respondent No. 3 from the shop in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The said suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and structural alternation in the building. It was pleaded that the respondents committed default in payment of rent and also made some structural alteration in the building by which the value of the building was diminished, therefore, they were liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute. The said suit was contested by the petitioners. They denied the version of plaint. The said that they have not committed any default in payment of rent and they have not made any structural alteration in the building in dispute and that the value of the building was not diminished by the alteration, if any. The trial Court after going through the evidence on record and after perusing the material produced by the parties in support of their cases and after hearing the parties, recorded findings on the question of default and structural changes against the landlord and dismissed the suit in part, i.e., for ejectment by the judgment and order dated 25.7.1985, but decreed for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Challenging the validity of this order, petitioners filed a revision before the Court below. The Court below has also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and decree dated 9.12.1987, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the Court below have acted illegally in holding that no structural alterations were made in the shop in question and that its value was not diminished. It was urged that from the evidence on record it was proved that on account of structural alteration made by the respondents, the roof of the building was cracked and the value of the building was diminished.;