Sudhir Narain - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated April 17, 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun, affirming the judgment of the Judge. Small Causes court, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondents was decreed for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi was owner of property no. 2, Ramlila Bazar, Dehradun. A portion of this property consisting of one room was in defendants' tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. THE plaintiff filed salt on the allegations that the defendant without permission of the plaintiff in writing or even orally constructed one room in front of the room under his tenancy and such construction amounts to structural alteration which diminished its value, utility and disfigured it. It was further alleged that the defendant caused substantial damage to the walls, roof and doors of the tenanted accommodation and thereby the defendant rendered himself liable for eviction as provided under section 20 (2) (b) and (c) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). THE plaintiff served him with a notice dated 15-6-75 and thereby determined the tenancy. The tenant contested the suit and it was denied that he raised new construction. It was stated that tin shed construction was built by the plaintiff himself in the year 1969 and the defendant had merely effected certain repairs in the said tin shed in March 1978, Originally, there were two rooms and a kitchen in the tenancy of the defendant but the plaintiff had taken possession of one room from the defendant assuring him that it would be restored to him after some time but he failed to carry out his promise. He denied that any substantial damage was caused to the accommodation in question. The Judge, small causes court decreed the suit on the finding that the tenant had raised new constructions and thereby diminished its value, utility and disfigured it. The said finding has been affirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the findings recorded by the courts below are erroneous in law and 'secondly even assuming that such construction was made, it did not diminish its value, utility or disfigured the accommodation under tenancy.
(3.) THE courts below have recorded a finding that the petitioners were tenants of one room. In front of the said room there was a chabutra. THE tenants constructed a room by raising walls over the chabutra in front of the tenanted room in May 1978. THEy placed tin shed roof over the newly constructed walls THE tenants thus added one room to their tenanted accommodation. THE courts below have recorded this finding on the basis of the evidence on record. THE tenants in their written statement had denied that they raised any construction. THE courts below on perusal of the evidence on record did not believe the version of the defendant. THE tenant had sent a reply to the notice (paper no. 49-C) and that revealed that he had constructed the existing wall. His version that he only constructed the wall on the old existing wall was disbelieved by the courts below. Admittedly, no permission in writing was obtained by the tenants from the plaintiff to construct the new wall. THE Courts below considered the statement of the tenant Sri Vilayati Ram and other witness Sri Manhey Ram THEre is no illegality in the findings recorded by the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioners further urged that the petitioners had raised the construction and by raising construction the value of the property has been enhanced and not diminished and if a tenant raises any construction that adds value to the property and it cannot be taken as to have diminished the value of the property or its utility or disfigured it.;