Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners have called in question the judgement and decree dated 31.1.2012 passed by the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in JSCC Revision No.1 of 2018, whereby the revision filed by the respondents (tenants) has been allowed and the judgement and decree dated 22.12.2007 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court decreeing the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has been set aside.
(3.) The facts in brief necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the suit in question was instituted by Shiv Shankar Mishra, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners against Ibrahim Ansari, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondents. Both the original plaintiff and defendant have died during pendency of the proceedings and the petitioners and respondents herein were substituted in their place. According to the plaint case, the shop Gaddi No.2, alongwith open land measuring 27 feet x 18 feet was let out to the original defendant. The monthly rent was Rs.37/-. It was alleged that there was default in payment of rent by the defendant from 1.10.1994 to 30 April 1996 amounting to Rs.703/-. A notice dated 21.5.1996 demanding arrears of rent and determining the tenancy was served upon the original defendant on 22.5.1996 but he failed to pay the arrears of rent as per demand made in the notice making himself liable for eviction. It was also alleged that the deposit of rent from October 1994 to June 1996 in Misc. Case No.82/83 under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short 'the Act') by the defendant-tenant was illegal as the said deposit was made even after plaintiff had shown his willingness to accept rent directly by giving notice dated 29.11.1994 served upon the defendant on 5.12.1994. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for recovery of arrears of rent since 1.10.1994 amounting to Rs.777/- and for eviction. It was also alleged that the defendant had carried out structural changes in the demised premises, which had reduced its value and utility, thus making out ground for eviction under Section 20(2)(c) of the Act. Allegations were also made as to seek eviction on grounds specified under Section 20(2)(b) and (d) of the Act.;