N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) Respondents 3 to 8 are the landlords of an accommodation occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. A suit was instituted by respondents 3 to 8 against the petitioner for his ejectment inter alia on the grounds that he was defaulter in payment of rent, that he had without permission of the landlord constructed two rooms over the roof of the accommodation which had not only diminished its value but also its utility and had the affect of disfiguring it and that the tenancy of the petitioner had been duly terminated by serving a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that he was not a defaulter in payment of Rent and at all events he having made the necessary deposit as contemplated by Section 20(4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) no decree could be passed for his ejectment on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent. In regard to the construction of the two rooms his case was that these rooms had been constructed with the permission of the landlord respondents and that at all events they did not have the effect of either diminishing the value of the accommodation or its utility or disfiguring it as contemplated by section 20(2)(c) of the Act. It was also pleaded by him that no notice of termination of tenancy had been served on him.
(2.) After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties the Judge, Small Causes, respondent No. 2, held that the tenancy of the petitioner had been duly terminated by serving on him a valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the two rooms which the petitioner had admittedly constructed over the roof of the accommodation in question had not been constructed with the permission of the landlord-respondents and that those constructions had diminished the value of the roof and the roof could not be utilised as a roof because of these constructions. On these findings the suit was decreed. In regard to the plea raised by the landlord-respondents that the petitioner was defaulter in payment of rent the Judge, Small Causes, took the view that since the necessary deposit as asserted by the petitioner has been made by him no decree for his ejectment could be passed on that ground. The decree of the Judge, Small Causes, was challenged by the petitioner in a revision which has been dismissed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, respondent No. 1. In regard to the question as to whether a valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served on the petitioner and as to whether the two rooms had been constructed by the petitioner with the permission of the landlord-respondents it has been held by respondent No. 1 that the findings in this behalf of the Judge, Small Causes, were correct and did not suffer from any such defect which could justify interference in a civil revision. The finding in the Judge, Small Causes, on the question as to whether the construction of the two rooms amounted to structural alteration in the building and was likely to diminish its value and utility has also been upheld by respondent No. 1. He has recorded a further finding that the construction of the two rooms on the upper floor had also the effect of disfiguring the accommodation in question. It is these two orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(3.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the two rooms in question were constructed by the petitioner with the permission of the landlord-respondents and the finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2 to the contrary was erroneous. Suffice it to say so far as this submission is concerned that the question as to whether any permission had been granted by the landlord-respondents for construction of the two rooms aforesaid is essentially a question of fact and the finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2 on such a question, as a necessary corrollary, is a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence and cannot be challenged in a writ petition. Nothing has been brought to my notice which may justify interference with this finding under Article 226 of the Constitution.;