- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is landlord's petition challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 24-4-2001 passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur dismissing Civil Revision No. 35 of 2000 and affirming judgment and order dated 31-8-2000 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner-landlord filed Suit No. 86 of 1985 praying for a decree of ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the shop, in dispute, situate at Mohalla Old Fruit Market Jatepur, Dharmasala Bazar, Gorakhpur. It was alleged that the respondent was tenant of the shop, in dispute, on a monthly rent of Rs. 46. 87p; that the tenant had not paid any rent w. e. f. July, 1994 till the date of institution of suit and a sum of Rs,859/- was outstanding towards rent and interest at the rate of 15% per annum; that the tenant was carrying on business from another shop located at Maheva by sub-letting the shop, in dispute; that in collusion with the sub-tenant, the tenant had dug a pitch of 1 1/2x2 ft at the floor of the shop, in dispute and had erected Dochatti on a linter which had weakened and deshaped the shop, indispute; and that due to illegal activities of the tenant, he had terminated the tenancy by means of notice dated 24-7-1985 served upon the tenant on 29-7-1995. The suit was contested by the respondent-tenant by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint on the grounds, inter alia, that there was neither any default in payment of rent nor any sub-tenancy; that he had not made any alteration in the shop, in dispute and that the shop had retained its original character.
(3.) IN support of his case, the petitioner-landlord filed documentary evidence containing copy of the notice dated 24-7-1995 and postal receipts. The respondent-tenant also filed documentary evidence in the shape of rent receipt dated 28-7-1994 showing paying of rent from July 1991 to June 1994; tender dated 6-8-1996 and 3-9-1996 as well as other tenders. The landlord examined himself as P. W. 1 and tenant examined himself as D. W. 1. The trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the defendant had committed irregularities in the payment of rent according to law and as such, his tenancy stood terminated by notice dated 24-7-1995? (2) Whether the defendant had caused any material alteration in the shop, in question, as to diminish its value ? (3) Whether the tenant had sub let the shop, in question to some other person and on such ground the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated by notice dated 24-7-1995?;