- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord challenges the order dated 18th December, 1991, passed by the Revisional Court/district Judge, Azamgarh, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'iv' to the writ petition, whereby the Revisional Court allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondent-tenant (defendant in the suit) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 3rd December, 1990, passed by Judge Small Cause Court.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-landlord filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent-tenant from the accommodation in question on the ground that the tenant is default and has not paid the rent since February, 1968 in spite of demand being made and further that the tenant made structural changes in the building under tenancy, according to which the value and utility of the building has been diminished. THE Trial Court tried the suit and on the basis of evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the tenant- respondent is entitled to benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act'), and even if he was in arrears of rent, the petitioner-landlord is entitled to get only possession of the accommodation in question and is not entitled to receive the rent. On the question of material structural alteration, the Trial Court found that the alterations are such which cannot be sad to be alteration amounting to diminishing the utility and value of the accommodation in question, therefore, the Trial Court vide order dated 3rd December, 1990 decreed the suit on the ground of structural alterations. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant-respondent preferred a revision under Section 20 (5) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the revisional authority. The Revisional Court vide order dated 18th December, 1991 allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit file by the petitioner-landlord. The petitioner-landlord filed present writ petition before this Court and this Court vide order dated 4th October, 2002 dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, aggrieved the order dated 4th October, 2002, passed by this Court, the petitioner- landlord filed Civil Appeal, arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 881 of 1995, Sri Pratap Narain & Anr. v. The District Judge, Azamgarh & Anr. , before the Apex Court. The Apex Court granted leave and vide its order dated 20 March, 1995 allowed the civil appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord and directed the High Court to restore the writ petition to its original number and decide the same afresh expeditiously in accordance with law. The Apex Court in its judgment has held "a perusal of Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of Act 13 of 1972 would indicate that a suit for eviction is maintainable only if the tenant is found to have made an, structural changes without the consent of the landlord and that such changes resulted in diminishing the value of the building. Therefore, even if it is held that the structural changes were made by the appellant without the consent of the landlord, the suit could not be decreed unless it was further found that the changes resulted in diminishing the value of the building. " This writ petition is, therefore, heard pursuant to the direction issued by the Apex Court, as stated above. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord demonstrated that the Trial Court while decreeding the suit on the ground of structural alterations have found that on the basis of materials on record, the argument of the petitioner-landlord to the effect that because of the structural alterations without the consent of the landlord, it cannot be said that the value of the building has been diminishes or its structural changes has diminishes its utility, therefore, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Revisional Court did not advert to the aforesaid aspect of the matter and allowed the revision without recording any finding, which according to the law laid down by the Apex Court in this case itself is sufficient to decree the suit if the findings are in favour of plaintiff, therefore, in my opinion the order passed by the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. This matter is remanded back to the Revisional Court to decide the controversy in accordance with law and in the light of the directions issued by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 20th March, 1995.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18th December, 1991, passed by the Revisional Court (Annexure-'iv' to the writ petition) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Revisional Court to decide the controversy in accordance with law and in the light of the directions issued by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 20th March, 1995 within a period of six months' from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;