- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is landlord's petition filed against the judgment and order dated 29th of October, 1988 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Moradabad in SCC Revision No. 11 of 1982 whereby the Court below has remanded the case to the Court of JSCC with specific direction to decide whether a single suit in respect of two tenements was maintainable on the basis of single notice in the present case.
(2.) THE case has a chequered history and was remanded twice by the revisional Court to the trial Court and thus, the litigation which was initiated in the year 1981 is still surviving. The petitioner is, admittedly, landlord of house No. 47/a-9 situate in Mohalla Banbataganj, District Moradabad. The said accommodation consists of one room, latrine, Verahanda on the ground floor and one room on the first floor, of which the respondent No. 3 (who died during the pendency of the writ petition) was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 37/ -. The SCC Suit No. 207 of 1981 was instituted for the ejectment of respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred as the tenant) on the ground that he is in arrears of rent since 1st of January, 1981 and has failed to pay the same in spite of notice of demand dated 12th of October, 1981 served on 14th of October, 1981 and has made material alterations and has disfigured the tenanted building and is, thus, liable for ejectment under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of U. P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ). The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations and the deposit was made under Section 20 (4) of the Act 13 of 1972. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 14th of May, 1984 found that the tenant is not liable for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent as he has deposited the requisite amount under Section 20 (4) of the Act. However, the decree for ejectment was passed on the finding that the tenant has made material alterations on the first floor of the tenanted accommodation, as detailed in the judgment. The said judgment and decree was challenged by filing Civil Revision No. 124 of 1984 by the tenant. The revisional Court in para 7 of its judgment found that the tenant has made the additions and alterations and structural changes in the accommodation in his possession without the permission of the plaintiff landlord and is, thus, liable for eviction on the said ground. It was found that the tenant has constructed two rooms on the roof of the tenanted accommodation and has demolished the staircase and has constructed one bathroom at this side and has also reconstructed a kitchen in its area. During the pendency of the revision an application for amendment of written statement was filed by the tenant respondent to incorporate para 18-A in the written statement. By means of the said paragraph the tenant inserted a plea that the lower portion of the house was allotted to him on 4th of October, 1950 and the first floor of the house was allotted to him on 11th of October, 1955, the rents of these two tenements were Rs. 12/- to Rs. 13/- per month respectively. The landlord added a tin shed and the rent was increased to Rs. 16/- and to Rs. 25/- and as such the present suit is not maintainable. The revisional Court although confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court on all counts, but allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court with the direction that the amendment sought for to be permitted to be incorporate in the written statement and to proceed with the trial of the case after giving an opportunity to the landlord to file replication and recording evidence of both the parties. However, it was made clear by it that the trial Court will have no jurisdiction to open the findings given earlier which have been confirmed by him in the revision vide order dated 3rd of August, 1985.
(3.) AFTER remand the written statement was amended accordingly and after filing of the replication, issue No. 6 to the effect whether the disputed accommodation was allotted to the defendant through two different allotment orders and the present suit in respect of the accommodations is not maintainable, was framed. The trial Court proceeded to decide the said issue in the light of the evidence produced by the parties. After recording the finding and accepting the case of the respondent tenant that two tenements were let out to him separately in pursuance of the two allotment orders referred to above held that the suit was maintainable. It proceeded further to re-decide the issue No. 2 notwithstanding the clear cut decision given by superior Court i. e. the revisional Court that the point which has already been decided shall not be reopened by the trial Court. The issue No. 2 reads as follows : "whether the defendant has causes substantial damages to the building and has caused structural alterations diminishing its value and utility and disfiguration of building? If so its effect. ";