Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. - (1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the judgment and order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act). Agra.
(2.) The facts, giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a J.S.C. Suit No. 124 of 1993 was filed by the respondent. Murari Lal Goyal, against the petitioner for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question on the ground that the petitioner has made material alteration in the shop in question. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement on the ground that the shop in question is under the tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 300, that liability of paying house tax is not on the petitioner ; that uptodate rent has been deposited in the Court under Section 30 (1) of Act No. X11I of 1972. that there was no new material alteration in the shop in question and as the petitioner has deposited the rent, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act ; that the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff alone and the value and utility of the shop in question was increased by alteration made by the petitioner, therefore, the provisions of Section 20 (1) (c) of the Act are not attracted. During the pendency of the proceeding before the trial court an advocate commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report. The report was confirmed. The, trial court held that the petitioner (s entitled to get benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, the constructions made by the petitioner are of temporary nature and have the benefit of increasing utility of the shop in question instead of diminishing its value or utility. With these findings the suit was dismissed. A revision was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the judgment and decree passed by the revisional court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revision was allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit for ejectment was decreed. The petitioner has challenged this judgment and decree passed by the revisional court dated 17.3.1997.
(3.) The grounds taken by the petitioner are that the revisional court was not the Court of first appeal, therefore, its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was limited one and if the revisional court was of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial court is to be set aside, then it could have remanded the case to the trial court and should not have substituted its own finding on the question of fact. The second ground is that under Section 20 (1) (c) of the Act, the eviction can only be ordered when changes/constructions made by a tenant result in spoiling the premises. But if it has enhanced the value of the building, then it cannot be said to be a material alteration. There is no such finding recorded by the revisional court and the report of the Commissioner has wrongly been discarded on the ground that no opportunity to file objection was given to the landlord against the aforesaid report submitted by the advocate commissioner, whereas, the opportunity was given to the landlord.;