M.P.Singh - (1.) THE petitioner is the owner and landlady of premises no. 15 (old number 9-A), Muir Road, Allahabad. It was let out to the respondent no. 3 in the month of July, 1968. THE accommodation comprised of a Drawing-cum-dining room, one bed-room, store, kitchen, a verandah and appurtenant land.
(2.) THE petitioner filed suit no. 8 of 1978 in the Court of Judge Small Cause, Allahabad against the respondent no. 3 for ejectment on the ground : (i) that the respondent no. 3 has constructed one room over the Chabu- tara, enclosed the verandah and courtyard. One more room was constructed on the appurtenant land. This was done without the permission of the landlady. THE said construction had 'disfigured' the building. No plan was got sanctioned by the tenant from the Developmeet Authority for the said construction. This act of the tenant made him liable to be evicted under Section 20 (2) (c) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (ii) that the building was let out to the respondent no. 3 for residential purposes but he started using it for non-residential purposes and opened a Bakery. He also made a big oven for the purposes of his business. For this reason the respondent no. 3 became liable for ejectment under Section 20 (2) (d) of the Act. Relief for arrears of rent for a sum of Rs. 641.20 was also sought for, inter alia other reliefs which are not very much material now. In substance it was a pure and a simple suit of eviction for breach of the provisions of Section 20 (2) (c) causing 'disfiguring' of the building and Section 20 (2) (d) of the Act for using the premises for the purpose other than for which the respondent no. 3 was admitted to the tenancy of the building. The defendant-respondent no. 3 contested the suit stating :- That the premises was let out to him for carrying on the business of bakery and confectionary. Preparation of bread and confectionary was carried on in an oven which was installed at the back of the building. It was the very first step for running the business in July 1968 itself. The oven was provided with a brick covering all around for protection from rain and dust. The said construction was also for storing the articles to be backed and after baking. It was done with full knowledge and consent of the landlady and her husband, who were residing in a separate unit, hardly at a distance of 5 yards from the premises let out to him. He has been residing at House no. 121, Seewai Mandi, Nakhas Kona, Allahabad ever since 1960. There was no occasion for him to take the building for residential purposes. The premises in dispute is being used for the purposes for which the tenancy was created. The defendant further asserted that he has not made any construction or structrual changes. The wall which is said to have enclosed the courtyard has been in existence from before the commencement of defendant's tenancy. In the verandah a single brick wall was constructed with the consent of the landlady and her husband. But for the said wall, the verandah could not be used for the purpose of bakery, because of immense dust which blew from the adjoining vast vacant plot towards the east which was used for purposes of cattle-grazing. The construction of room over the Chabutra or on the appurtenant land has been denied.
(3.) THE learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit for ejectment by recording the following findings : (i) the defendant did not use the premises for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the building. THE building was let out for running a bakery. (ii) THE defendant did not construct any room as pleaded by the plaintiff, but the suit for recovery of rent from October, 1977 till the date of institution of the suit was decreed. Against the order of the Judge Small Cause dated 26-4-1980, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court Act before the learned District Judge. Both the findings recorded by the trial court have been upheld by the revisional court. The revision was dismissed on 11-8-1980. The present writ petition is directed against this order.;