Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners challenges judgment and order passed by revisional court dated 22nd September, 2003 and the judgment and order dated 13th May, 1997 passed by the trial court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the landlord-petitioners purchased the property in dispute by a registered sale deed dated 4th March, 1987. The petitioners filed a suit being Suit No. 69 of 1988 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent-tenants on the ground that the tenants being in arrears of rent for more than four months and have not paid the same in spite of service of notice. Therefore, the tenancy was terminated and suit was filed. One additional ground was taken in the suit that the tenants have materially and structurally altered the accommodation in dispute which has diminished the utility and also the value of the accommodation in dispute. The Suit No. 69 of 1988 was withdrawn and the present suit being Suit No. 123 of 1992 was filed on 31st August, 19 92, inter alia on the grounds referred to above. The tenants disputed the plaint allegations and submitted that they have been regularly paying the rent and they are not in default and in any view of the matter since the tenants deposited the admitted rent etc. on the first date of hearing of the suit, therefore, the tenants are entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the tenants cannot be evicted on this ground. On the ground of structural alteration the tenants, have denied the same and submitted that the tenancy is coming down from the time of father of the tenants and in 1968 the tenants' father was alive. There was a rent deed between the father of the tenants and the then landlord, Laxmi Chand, to the effect that sehan, staircase and roof would not be part of the tenancy and the rent was agreed at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. With regard to allegations regarding structural alteration the tenants have taken stand that there was oral agreement in the year 1977 between the erstwhile landlord. Laxmi Chand and the tenant, Om Prakash to the effect that sehan, staircase and the roof would now be included in the tenancy of the tenant and the rent was enhanced from Rs. 50 to Rs. 60 per month. It is also alleged that it is at that time that the tenant was allowed to use the accommodation for manufacturing of biscuits. It is further alleged that in the year 1987 when the present landlord-petitioners purchased the property, the tenant was carrying on business of manufacture of biscuits from the accommodation in dispute and that to the allegation of structural alteration the tenant had denied that there is any such structural alteration which had either defaced the accommodation in dispute or diminished the value or utility of the accommodation in dispute. The trial court after considering the material on the record has dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 13th May, 1997.
(3.) Aggrieved thereby the petitioner-landlords filed a revision being Small Cause Revision No. 20 of 1997. This revision was allowed by the revisional court by its judgment and order dated 5th March, 1999 and the revisional court set aside the order passed by the trial court and the suit filed by the landlords has been decreed. The tenant-respondents filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 9655 of 1999 challenging the order passed by the revisional court dated 5th March, 1999, before this Court. This Court by its judgment and order dated 7th September, 2000, allowed the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the revisional court and remanded the matter with a direction to the revisional court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the directions issued in the aforesaid judgment. This Court, in paragraphs 21, 22, 24 and 25 of the said judgment, had held as under : 21. Thus, if the findings recorded by the trial court are based on no evidence or there exists no evidence to sustain the finding on the record or finding is solely based on inadmissible evidence or is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could have ever reached to the conclusion arrived at by the Court, may be a good ground for setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court but the same cannot be grounds for reappraising the evidence or to record its own findings on the questions of fact contrary to the findings recorded by the trial court. In the present case, both parties produced evidence in support of their cases on each issue referred to above, therefore, it was not a case in which it could be said that there was absolutely no evidence or that the findings were based on any inadmissible evidence or that on the basis of the evidence on the record, no reasonable person could have reached to the conclusion arrived at by the trial court. The court below has, thus, acted illegally in observing that : In view of the above the evidence taken into consideration by the lower court to be scrutinized and it is to be seen that the jurisdiction which is vested in them has been exercised properly or not, whether the evidence has been taken into consideration or not, whether inadmissible evidence have been taken into consideration or not. In view of above pronouncements, the evidences which have been adduced by the parties and taken into consideration by the Court and keeping in view the contention of learned Counsel for parties that will be examined. 22. After making the abovenoted observation, the court below has re-assessed the entire evidence, oral and documentary, on the record and wrote judgment spreading over 52 (typed) pages substituting its own findings for the findings recorded by the trial court. Legally, if in the opinion of the court below the findings recorded by the trial court were not legal, after setting aside the said findings, it could at the best remand the case to the trial court for decision afresh. It has acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction in allowing the revision and decreeing the suit for ejectment on the ground of material alteration and structural changes. 24. The court below has not noticed the abovenoted decision in the impugned judgment. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Judgment and order passed by the court below is liable to be quashed. 25. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 5.3.1999 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, is hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the court below for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above.;