- (1.) The writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26th November, 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh allowing revision i.e., Revision No. 261 of 1997 filed by respondent-tenant setting aside Trial Court's judgment dated 15th September, 1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Small Cause, Azamgarh granting decree of eviction of respondent-tenant on the ground that compromise decree dated 6th February, 1981 in P.A. Case No. 4 of 1979 was violated. The Revisional Court having set aside the Trial Court's judgment has resulted in dismissal of petitioner's suit. Sri A.S. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Revisional Court has virtually given unreasoned order and has not discussed the issues properly.
(2.) However, Sri Govind Krishna, learned Counsel, appearing for respondent-tenant contended that mere construction of latrine etc. would not justify eviction of the tenant under section 20(2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). It is further contended that such construction has not resulted in diminishing value of the property in question. He also said that it is within the jurisdiction of Revisional Court and placed reliance on Apex Court decision in Pratap Narain v. District Judge, Azamgarh,1995 3 SCC 459 and this Court's decision in Vinay Kumar Agarwal v. XVIIth ADJ, Allahabad and others, 2001 43 AllLR 700 and Zubeda Khatoon and others v. VIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, and others, 1999 35 AllLR 710.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;