Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE above revision has been filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated April 10, 1991 passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Aligarh in SCC Suit No. 42 of 1986.
(2.) SMT . Hansmukhi Devi who has died during the pendency of the present revision instituted the aforestated SCC Suit No. 42 of 1986 against the present applicant for his ejectment from the house No. 2/142, Niranjanpuri, Aligarh on the allegations that she is owner and landlady of the said house. It was let out to the defendant namely the applicant herein, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ -. He is in arrears of rent and has not paid the water taxes. He has without permission of the land lady has raised substantial constructions and disfigured it in the month of January, 1986. The tenancy was terminated by means of the notice dated 4th of September, 1986 served on 27th of September, 1986. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that the defendant is the tenant of the entire Kothi. Initially, only part of Kothi was let out and the rent was Rs. 700/ - per month. Paucity of accommodation was felt by him and he was permitted to raise one room by the husband of the landlady. The landlady gave a map signed by her for raising the room with the stipulation that the rent would be enhanced w.e.f. 1st of April, 1983 by Rs. 100/ - to Rs. 800/ - per month. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1000/ - per month. The benefit under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was also claimed. The defendant tenant stated that he has deposited the entire amount as required under Section 20(4) of the said Act on the first date of hearing amounting to Rs. 15,000/ - and as such he may be relieved from eviction decree. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues, detailed in the judgment.
(3.) UNDER issue No. 1 relating to default in payment of rent by the defendant, it was found that the defendant failed to make the payment after the receipt of the notice and as such he is defaulter. However, the decree for eviction on the basis of the default was not granted. Benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act was extended. Under Issue No. 2 it was found that the defendant tenant has disfigured the building in question by raising construction which has diminished its value and utility and is, thus, liable for eviction. Notice under issue No. 3 was found valid. It was found under issue No. 4 that the suit is not barred by the principle of estoppal or acquiescence. Consequently, decree for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent etc. was passed by the court below.;