- (1.) HEARD Shri B. D. Pandey, counsel for the appellant and Shri Servesh Agrawal, counsel for the respondent.
(2.) BY the present revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 21-7-1990 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Nainital in S. C. C. suit no. 24 of 1984. Briefly stated, a suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was let out a shop @ Rs. 225/- per month in the year 1984 for purposes of selling spare parts of the au tomobile. In January, 1984, the defend ant started breaking the boundary wall shown by 'sa, e' in the plaint map. After the objection, the defendant stopped breaking the said boundary wall. Later on, in June 1984 when the plaintiff was out of station, the defendant completely de molished the aforesaid wall and enlarged the gate shown by letters 'ka-kha' and con structed a new gate which is shown by letters 'ga-gha'. The defendant has erected a wall and divided the shop in question as a result of which the shop has been disfigured and the value and the utility of the same has been diminished. The alteration made by the defendant is very material and, therefore, the defend ant is liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute. The defendant has not paid the rent of the shop from October, 1983. The defendant, therefore, has sent the notice dated 4-8-1984 for recovery of rent as well as for terminating the tenancy which was served upon the defendant on 8-8-1984 but the defendant has neither paid the rent of the shop nor has vacated the shop in question. The defendant has filed a written statement stating therein that he has not demolished any wall and has not con structed new gate. The gate is still in its previous condition. The defendant has constructed a duct in the empty shop which was essential for his business. The defendant has sent the rent of the shop to the plaintiff by way of money order which was denied to be accepted by the plaintiff. The defendant has deposited the rent of the shop in question under Section 20 (4) of the U. P Act No. 13 of 1972. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dis missed.
(3.) THE plaintiff has examined himself as P. W. 1 and Chokhelal as P. W. 2. THE de fendant has examined himself as D. W. I and Asmat Ulla as D. W. 2. Towards the documentary evi dence, the plaintiff has produced 8 docu ments as per list 5 ga. The defendant has produced 5 treasury challans as per list 22 ga, 9 treasury challans as per list 52 ga and 10 documents as per list 36 ga.;