Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition was heard on 5th April, 2002, When the case was taken up in the revised list, Shri G.L. Tripathi appeared for the petitioner and no one appeared for the respondent. Sri Tripathi was heard in support of the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now, here are the reasons.
(2.) Petitioner who is landlord filed a suit before the Judge Small Causes Court against the respondent No. 2 under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being suit No. 92 of 1979, on the ground of arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent tenant and also on the ground that the tenant without the consent of the landlord in writing have carried out material alteration in the accommodation which diminished Its value. The trial court by its order dated 8th February, 1984, decreed the suit after recording the evidence that the respondent-tenant was in default.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order respondent-tenant preferred revision before the respondent No. 1 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which has been registered as Rent Control Revision No. 47 of 1984. The revision was allowed by the revisional court and the revisional court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner-landlord.;