- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 1-7-1987 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Banda, and the revisional order dated 23-3- 1988 where by the suit of the landlady for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of sub-letting and material alteration was decreed.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the landlady, respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioners alleging that the petitioner No. 1 was the tenant and that he was in arrears of rent w. e. f. 30- 12-1981 and that he did not pay the rent inspite of repeated demands. It was also alleged that the tenancy of the petitioner No. 1 was not for residential purposes, but the accommodation was being used for business purposes. It was also alleged that the petitioner No. 1 had sub-let the premises in question to petitioner No. 2, who was using the premises for his business purposes in the name and style of "rai Light House". THE landlady further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 had constructed a kiosk in front of the house and thereby, caused material alteration, which not only diminished the value of the building but also disfigured it. The petitioners contested the suit and filed a joint written statement denying all the allegations made by the landlady. The petitioners submitted that the tenancy was both for residential as well as for business purposes and that no material alteration in the building was ever caused by them. It was also submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is the uterine brother of petitioner No. 1 and that he had been living with petitioner No. 1 since birth and that the business in the name of Rai Light House was being done by the petitioner No. 1 with the help of his sons alongwith the petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, there was no question of any sub-letting. The petitioners further submitted that there was no default in the payment of the rent. The rent was being sent by Money Order, which was refused by the landlady. The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting and on the ground of material alteration. The Judge Small Causes Court held that the petitioner No. 1 was not a defaulter in the payment of rent and that the premises was not given exclusively for residential purposes. However, the Judge Small Cause Court held that the notice given by the landlady terminating the tenancy was valid and that the defendant No. 2 had sub-let the premises to the petitioner No. 2. The trial Court further held that the construction of the kiosk caused material alteration and had disfigured and diminished the value of the building.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of ejectment passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, the petitioners filed a revision, which was also dismissed. The question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner No. 1 had sub-let the premises to the petitioner No. 2 and whether the construction of the kiosk had caused material alteration in the building or not?;