S. N Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th September 1915, passed by IInd Addl. District Judge, Bareilly, dismissing the revision of the petitioners against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly, whereby the suit against the petitioners was decreed for their ejectment from the premises In question.
(2.) THE petitioners were tenants of premises in question comprising of the shops in the shape of two separate apartments with intervening wall and two kothas on the rear side adjacent to the intervening wait situated In Gangapur locality of Bareilly town. THE respondents 3 and 4 filed S.C.O. suit no. 249 of 1978 for arrears of rent against the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 8 on the allegation that the tenants made material alterations in the premises in question by removing the intervening wall which separated two shops on the front side besides opening a door in the connecting wall between the two kothas on the rear side and thereby diminished the value of the disputed premises It was further asserted that the floor of the front shop was also erased and uprooted and brought to lower level besides the tenant damaged the corner wall of the disputed premises by installing electric angle for taking the electric connection This coused substantial damage to the disputed premises. THEse material alterations and damage to the building in the suit were brought about by the defendants without consent of the landlord. With the result they became liable for eviction under the provisions of 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 petitioners contested the suit. They denied that they carried out any material alteration which diminished the value of the property or substantially damaged any portion of the property in suit. They denied the service of notice on some defendants and alleged that they have paid the entire arrears of rent. The Judge Small Causes Court, recorded a finding that the petitioners caused material alterations which diminished the value of the property and further they substantially damaged the property in question and decreed the suit. On revision, the respondent no. 1, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the respondent no. 1 declined to interfere with the order of the trial court on the ground that the question as to whether there was material alteration which diminished the value of the property or the petitioners caused substantial damage to the property in question was question of fact and could not have been interfered with in revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, is erroneous in law. This Court in Dr. Jai Gapal Gupta v. Bodh Mal, 1969 ALJ 477, held that in a suit based on material alteration the Court has first to record a finding about the actual construction made by the tenant and that finding will be a finding of fact After the Court has ascertained the actual constructions made by the tenant, it has to form an opinion as to whether those constructions have materially altered the accommodation. This will be ordinarily a finding of law.;