Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, Advocate along with Mrs. Tabassum Hashimi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
(2.) This is the petition by the tenants, challenging the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Ghaziabad in revision no. 93 of 2012 by which the revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the trial court dated 31.3.2012 in S.C.C. Suit No. 23 of 2009 has been dismissed.
(3.) The petitioners are the tenants in the shop, owned by the landlord respondent, which is not in dispute. Adjoining to the shop in dispute, there was another shop, which was in possession of one Sri Anil Kumar, which is said to be belonging to different person and not owned by the landlord-respondent. The respondent landlord filed a suit being S.C.C. Suit no. 23 of 2009 on the ground of default in payment of rent and on the ground that the petitionertenants have made the material change in the premises in dispute by removing wall of the shop bringing their case within the purview of Section 20 (2) (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ("Act, 1972") without the permission of the landlord by which the value of the property in dispute has been reduced. The trial court decreed the suit by the order dated 31.3.2012. The trial court has decided the issue against the landlord relating to the default in payment of arrear of rent, however, decided issue no. 2 which relates to the plea that a material change has been made by the tenants by removing the wall in favour of the landlord and has held that the case of the landlord is covered under Section 20 (2) (c) of the Act, 1972. The trial court recorded the finding that the wall between the two shops has been removed without taking permission from the landlord.;