S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is landlord's writ petition. Landlord-petitioner instituted suit for eviction against original tenant-respondent No. 3 Jagdish Prasad since deceased and survived by legal representatives which was registered as SCC suit No. 18 of 1983. Relief for eviction of the tenant in the plaint of the suit was sought on the ground of material alteration and sub-letting by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. In fat defendant No 2-Devendra Datt Sharma was son of defendant No. 1. Devendra Datt Sharma was not initially impleaded as respondent in the writ petition however, he has now been impleaded as respondent No. 3/4 after the death of defendant No. 1/respondent No. 3 Jagdish Prasad. Property in dispute is a shop situate in Gali Dharmshala (Kitabon waii gali, Baraut Baghpat). Rate of rent is Rs. 7.81 per month. It was further alleged in the plaint that the floor of the shop had been raised by 9 inches and a channel had been put below the karis and a stone slab was placed on the bricks which were lying on the karis after removing complete malwa thus weight was increased at the karis causing substantial damage to the room. JSCC, Meerut dismissed the suit on 17.7.1990. Against the said judgment and decree SCC revision No. 190 of 1990 was filed. IXth Additional District Judge dismissed the revision on 16.4.1991 hence this writ petition.
(2.) The trial Court held that sub-fetting was not proved, that the allegation of change of business was no substantiated in the sense that it was not proved by the landlord, that only for carrying on the practice of Vaid shop was let out. In respect of damage to the building and material alteration trial Court held that neither any change was made in the shop by the tenant nor any damage was caused to the building by him.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the impugned judgments. There cannot be any sub-letting if instead of father son starts doing business in the tenanted shop. In this regard learned Counsel for the petitioner categorically stated that he was not pressing ground of subletting. Damage to the building and material alternation have not been found to have been caused or done by the tenant by both the Courts below. This is finding of fact. Even otherwise the alleged alteration neither amount to material alternation nor disfigurement vide Waryam Singh v. Baldeo Singh, 2003 (1) SCC 59 and G. Raghunathan v. K. V. Vergeese, 2005 AIR SCW 4086 . Change of business also does not amount to in-consistent user.;