S.K.DHAON, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition. The landlord, the respondent No. 3, instituted a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop on the ground that he (the petitioner) had made material alterations in accommodation let out to him without the permission of the landlord. The trial Court (Judge Small Causes) decreed the suit. The District Judge dismissed the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act preferred by the petitioner. Hence this petition.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that the tenant extended the width of a projection to 4' whereas originally it was 2'. The tenant also placed wooden planks on three sides and fixed shutters. He also removed old doors, which existed inside. The trial Court on 19th May, 1976, decreed the suit. The matter was taken in revision by the tenant and the revisional Court allowed the same in part. It set aside the decree directing the ejectment of the tenant and dismissed the suit so far as the ejectment was concerned. However, it decreed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 93.90 as arrears of rent. The landlord came to this Court by means of Civil Revision No. 255 of 1977 which was disposed of on 20th November, 1979. This Court recorded a finding that the tenant made the offensive construction in 1964 when the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act) was applicable. This Court also took the view that even under the old Act the tenant was obliged to obtain the permission of the landlord in writing before making any material alterations. This Court held that since no finding had been recorded as to whether the nature of the constructions made by the tenant offended the provisions of the New Act or the Old Act the matter should be sent back to the Revisional Court for a decision thereon. Accordingly, this Court set aside the revisional order passed in favour of the petitioner and sent the case back to the Revisional Court for the decision of the revision afresh and in accordance with law.
(3.) THE Revisional Court in paragraph 13 of its order observed : "Therefore, we can safely conclude that the old shutters were removed. The width of the projection was extended from 2' to 4'. The old doors were removed and new shutters have been fixed." In view of the categorical finding of this Court in Civil Revision No. 255 of 1977 referred to above that the offensive constructions were made in the year 1964, neither the landlord nor the tenant can assert that the provisions of the Old Act are not applicable.;