- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This is tenant's writ petition for quashing the orders dated 8-5-90 (Annexure-2) and dated 29-10-93 (An- nexure-1) passed by Judge, Small Causes Court Meerut (Respondent No. 2) and llnd Additional District Judge, Meerut (Respondent No. 1) respectively.
(2.) BECAUSE coming to the controversy involved in this writ petition, it is necessary to mention a few facts. Deen Dayal Sharma, the predeces sor in interest of the petitioners was un-disputedly tenant in the disputed house since before the house was purchased by Kamla Devi. She filed Suit No. 562/66 for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The said suit was dismissed. Thereafter the landlady filed another Suit No. 930/68 for an injunc tion restraining the tenant from raising constructions. This suit was not dismissed as withdrawn. Then the landlady filed the present suit bearing No. 283/69 for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of material alteration. According to the landlady the defendant started raising con struction in the disputed house in the year 1968 and so she filed the aforesaid suit for injunction. Despite an interim injunction, the defendant completed the construc tions, therefore, she withdrew the suit. Ac cording to her, the tenant has built new rooms and has reduced the area of court yard, he has opened a door in the northern wall and closed the two openings in the verandah and converted it into a room. All these alterations have been made without the consent of the landlord. The tenant contested the suit. Regarding the material alteration defendant's case was that at the time of allotment the house was single storied and it was not habitable. With the permission of the earstwhile landlord, the tenant made necessary additions and alterations to make house habitable and the upper story was also raised at his own expenses according to his needs. It was also con tended that the then landlord had also agreed that at the time of eviction, the defendant would be entitled to remove the 'malaba' of the constructions. In short the defence was that the disputed construc tions and alterations in the disputed house were made with the permission of the pre vious landlord much before the house in question was purchased by the landlady.
(3.) THE suit filed by the landlady-plain tiff was decreed by the Small Cause Court and the revision filed against the said judg ment was also dismissed. THE tenant petitioner approached this Court in Civil Revision No. 292/94 and the same was allowed by the judgment of this Court dated 20-2-76. THE case was sent back to the trial court with the direction to dispose of the case according to law after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce such evidence as they might desire. After the remand the Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut by the judgment dated 23-3-78 dismissed landlady's suit holding that the constructions raised by the tenant did not amount to material alteration within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (c) of the Old Rent Control Act i. e. U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947. THE trial Court, however, rejected the defendant's contention that the con structions in question had been raised as early as in the year 1961 and held that the constructions in question were raised much after the plaintiff had become owner and landlord of the disputed accommoda tion. THE landlady filed SCC Revision No. 152678, and the same was allowed by the order dated 18-8-80 and the case was again sent back to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the observa tions made in the body of thejudgment and after the remand the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit, which decree has been affirmed by the lower revisional court by the impugned order. Sri. R. R Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the finding of the courts below that the constructions have been raised after the house in question had been purchased by the present landlady is perverse in as much as both the courts below have not con sidered material pisce of evidence consist ing in the form of an admission of Mool Chand, the husband of the landlady which was made by him during the course of his statement recorded in Suit No. 562/66, wherein he appeared as an agent of the plaintiff-landlady. He submitted that in the aforesaid statement Mool Chand had clearly admitted that when he purchased the house, it was in the existing from the exact words were, "mujhe to aisa hi kharidane par mila. " Sri Goel argued that this vital admission made by the husband of the present landlady as her agent was conclusive under Section 18 of the Evidence Act and unless the same was explained by the landlady, it was binding upon the plain tiff andin view of this admis sion the finding of the courts below that the constrictions in question had been raised after the house in question was pur chased by the present landlady is not sus tainable.;