Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlord -respondent No. 2 Prakash Chandra Gupta instituted suit for eviction against tenant -petitioner on the ground of structural alteration in the tenanted building under section 20(2)(c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Building in dispute is a godown. Landlord asserted that when the building in dispute was let out to the tenant -petitioner, it was in the form of three rooms and the tenant by removing the intervening walls converted the same into one big hall. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 160 of 1983 (in Annexure -6 which is copy of judgment by the Trial Court it is wrongly mentioned as O.S. number.) J.S.C.C., Meerut before whom the suit was instituted held that no alternation or structural change had been made out by the tenant and the building in dispute even at the time of letting out was in the form of one big hall. Accordingly, suit was dismissed on 18.12.1984. Against the said judgment and decree landlord -respondent No. 2 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 41 of 1985. VIIIth A.D.J., Meerut found the findings of the Trial Court to be perverse, reversed the same and held that intervening walls had been removed by the tenant and the said action squarely fell within the mischief of section 20(2)(c) of the Act. The said clause is quoted below: (c) : That the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it;
(2.) THE VIIIth A.D.J., Meerut through judgment and order dated 6.2.1981 allowed the revision, set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent etc. at the admitted rate of rent of Rs. 200/ - per month (an additional amount of Rs. 21/ - per month is also payable as water tax). Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) SRI R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for tenant -petitioner has argued that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were pure findings of fact hence Revisional Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 25 Provincial Small Causes Court Act could not reverse the same. In the alternative it has also been argued that in case Revisional Court was of the opinion that findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court were erroneous in law then the only course left open was to remand the matter.;