HAKIM NAFISUL HASSAN Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHARANPUR AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-251
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 19,2008

Hakim Nafisul Hassan Appellant
VERSUS
IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHARANPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shamim Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Virendra Kumar who stated that he had filed his vakalatnama on behalf of all the proposed legal representatives of respondent No. 2. In the order sheet of 30.7.2008 also it is mentioned that Shri Virendra Kumar has filed vakalatĀ­nama on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Original landlord-respondent No. 2-Master Asghar Ali Khan since deceased and survived by legal representatives filed suit for eviction against tenant-petitioner in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 77 of 1993. Relief of recovery of arrears of rent was also sought. Admitted rent is Rs. 8/- per month. Property in dispute is house containing one room and other amenities. Eviction was sought on the ground of default as well as material alĀ­ternation. As far as default is concerned tenant deposited the entire rent on the first date of hearing and both the Courts below held that tenant-petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The said point does not survive. Judge Small Causes Courts, Saharanpur dismissed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 18.4.1996 holding that there was no such material alteration which was covered by sections 20 (2) (b) and (c) of the Act. However, landlord was held entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant. Against the said judgment and decree original landlord-respondent No. 2 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 38 of 1996. IInd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 8.2.1997 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction also hence this writ petition.
(3.) THE material alternation which was alleged and found to have been made by the tenant without the consent of the landlord was as follows : (a) Service latrine was converted into flush latrine, (b) A wall which had fallen down was re-erected by the tenant. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.