- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This revision is under Section 25 of Provin cial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-2-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 1 ). Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 17 of 1999 whereby the Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent at ihe rate of Rs. 826 per month till the delivery of vacant possession is handed ove' to the plaintiff, has been decreed.
(2.) THIS is defendant's revision who was tenant of Premises No. 25/2 Mail Road, Kanpur on a monthly rent of Rs. 826; on which the Plaintiff opposite party is landlady. The landlady brought SCC Suit No. 17 of 1999 for ejectment of the defendant tenarfeon the ailegations that the defendant took shop in Premises No. 25/2 The Mall Road, Kan pur. The shop consists of two compart ments. The defendant illegally and without written consent of the landlady got demolished the intervening wall of the two shops and constructed a "duchhatti" in the shop and also lowered down the floor of the shop by 2 feet and extended the shop towards east by three feet and constructed a Pakka Chabutra and fixed a Shutter, whereby the shop has been disfigured and it gives an ugly look. The constructions and structure alterations made by the defendant in the building has diminished its value, utility and dis figured it. Besides the tenanted shop of the defendant there is a third shop of the landlady in the tenancy of Smt. San-gita Makhija. The defendant also got demolished the intervening wall of his shop and the shop of tenant Sangita Makhija, resultantly all the three shops have been changed and converted into one shop. The defendant in the written statement as well as in evidence has not disputed the construction/alteration made by him. The defence is that all these constructions/alteration were made by him with the express permis sion and consent of the landlady. After carrying out the aforesaid construction when the defendant failed to increase rent as desired by the landlady, the suit giving rise to the present revision was fi!ed by her as a pressure tactics. How ever it was also submitted that these ad dition/alterations are not such as is like ly to diminish the value of the building or its utility or disfigured it. The trial Court decreed the suit and found that the constructions and structure alterations made in the build ing by the defendant are of such nature as It is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court the present revision has been filed chal lenging the legality and propriety of the aforesaid findings. This was the only issue, which was pressed and can vassed before this Court in the present revision. The learned Counsel for the applicant pressed the revision by as sailing the findings recorded by the trial Court on issue No. 1, relating to the material alteration in the disputed property and its disfigurement etc.
(3.) IT is no longer in dispute that the defendant has carried out following ad ditions, modification or structural chan ges in the premises in question, they are; (i) defendant removed the interven ing wall of his tenanted shop which con sists of two compartment, (ii) lowered down the floor of the shop by two feet; (iii) constructed a "duchhatti" in the dis puted shop. There is dispute in be tween the parties about existence of the earlier duchhatti. The case of the landlady is that the defendant constructed a Duchhatti for the first time. On the other hand according to the defendant tenant he has replaced the old wooden Ducchatti with a new Pakki Duchhatti (iv) the tenant has placed gir ders etc. in place of wooden Beam, (v) Extended the shop towards east by three feet by constructing a Pakka Chabutra and placing a Shutter and (vi) defendant has removed common wall in between his tenanted shop and of third shop in the tenancy of Sangita Makhija. Thereby the tenant has converted three shops in to one. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Verma, Advocate, strenuously contended that all these additions/alterations were made with the express and written permission of landlady. It was submitted that Sangita Makhija is the sister of defendant tenant. The walls were removed in ac cordance with the permission granted by the landlady and these altera tions/constructions have not in any way disfigured the building nor they have diminished its value or utility. By placing a girders and repairing the shop the value of the building has been en hanced and, as such, the Court below, committed illegality in decreeing the suit for ejectment of the defendant under Section 20 (2) (c) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;