A.N.Dikshita - (1.) THIS is a revision under section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and order dated 7-10-1988 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E. C. Act, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff opposite party (landlord) and ordering the eviction of the applicant (tenant) from the shop in dispute.
(2.) THE facts in brief are these : THE opposite party filed suit no. 18 of 1986 against the applicant on the allegations that the shop in dispute was taken by the applicant on the basis of an agreement to the effect that the applicant would carry on the business of tobacco, Bin, Match Boxes etc. in it and would not transact any other business in it ; that lateron the applicant started business of general merchandise in the shop in dispute ; that the applicant was thus guilty of inconsistent user of the shop ; that the applicant had made material alterations in the shop by removing the old wooden fixtures and putting new ones of his own choice ; that the applicant was in arrears of rent at the time of the notice and was thus a defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 ; that the applicant was also guilty of sub-letting the shop to another person ; and that after the determination of the tenancy the applicant was liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 190/- per month. THE relief claimed in the suit was for the eviction of the applicant from the shop in dispute and a decree for arrears of rent and damages. To sum up, the main controversies raised before the trial court were : 1. Whether the applicant was entitled to start some other business in the shop in dispute instead of the business for which the shop was let out to him and thus he was guilty of inconsistent user. 2. Whether the applicant had made material alterations, in the shop thus causing loss to the opposite party. 3. Whether the applicant was guilty of sub-letting. 4.Whether the tenancy of the applicant stood determined and he was liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 190/- per month ; and 5. Whether the applicant was defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. The suit was contested by the applicant denying the allegations in the plaint.
(3.) ON the basis of the evidenge adduced in the case on behalf of the parties and hearing arguments the trial court recorded the findings : 1. That the applicant was guilty of inconsistent user of the shop as he had started a business in the shop in dispute for which it was not let out; 2. That the applicant had not made material alterations in the shop in dispute and had not caused any damage to the opposite party ; 3. That the applicant had not guilty of sub-letting ; 4. That the tenancy of the applicant stood determined after the service of notice and he was liable to pay damages ; and 5. That the applicant was not a defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. Merely on the basis of the findings that the applicant was guilty of inconsistent user within the meaning of section 20 (2) (d) of the Act and that the tenancy of the applicant stood determined after the service of notice the trial court has decreed the suit for the eviction of the applicant from the shop; in dispute and has also decreed the suit for recovery of damages from the applicant.;