PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28th of September, 1991 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Allahabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 192 of 1980. The trial Court has decreed the suit for eviction of the applicants and also for recovery of water taxes, arrears of rent and damages etc.
(2.) THE plaintiff landlord (opposite party) instituted the suit on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff is landlord and owner of the shop Nos. 9, 10 and 11 with their back galleries situate in premises No. 17/33 -A, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad on a monthly rent of Rs. 720 besides water taxes payable as part of rent at the rate of 14 per cent wherein the defendants No. 1 and 2 are carrying on the business under the name and style of 'Mercury'. The shops were let out for the purposes of opening of dry cleaner shop. The defendants are in ar ­rears of rent since January, 1980 and the tenancy has been terminated by serving a registered notice dated 15 -10 -1980. But in spite of service of notice they did not pay the arrears of rent and water tax nor they have vacated the dis ­puted shop. It has been further pleaded that the shops were let out for the pur ­pose of dry cleaning business of clothes but they have opened a workshop for cleaning of clothes by water (wet method) and have con ­structed water storage tankers in the premises and have thereby materially damaged the building. Partition walls between the shops have been demolished, new openings have been made and another roof converting all three shops into double decker has been built, demolished bathrooms and latrine in shops, removed doors, show windows, doors and grills etc. from the shops and misappropriated them, The defendants, thus, have altered the structure of shops and thereby materially diminished the value of the shops and building. They have also made water storage tanks over the open roof which is causing nuisance and water tanks behind the shops on open passage. The suit was contested by the defendants on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff was one of the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute, other owners are Surya Narain Chaudhary and Chandra Narain Chaudhary who have not been made party to the suit and thus the suit is not main ­tainable. It was pleaded that the shops were let out for business purposes and they are carrying on the business of dry cleaning and dyeing etc. since very in ­ception of tenancy, water tax was never demanded from them, the rent has been deposited under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, deposits have also been made under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act. It was further pleaded that the defendants did not make any addition or alterattons in the disputed shop nor they have removed any build ­ing material as alleged in the plaint and water storage tanks were existing since the very inception of tenancy and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit the plaint was got amended. Para 8 -A and other amendments were incor ­porated on the allegation that the defendants caused and permitted to be caused substantial damages to the shops in tenancy described therein and are also liable for ejectment on that ground also. Plea that the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff by claiming that the plaintiff is not sole landlord was incorporated by adding para 10 -A in the plaint. The amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial Court by the order dated 25th of April, 1986 and one week was allowed to file additional written statement in reply to the amended paras of the plaint. The additional statement was not filed within the stipulated time and it was filer1 sub ­sequently which was not taken on the record by the order dated 12th of May, 1986. there being no additional written statement in reply to the amended paras of the plaint; pleas raised by way of amendment in the plaint remained uncontroverted.;