A.N. Dikshit, J. - (1.) THE revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act has been preferred by the applicant -tenant against the judgment and order dated 4.1.1999 passed by Shri S.C. Tiwari, Vth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, decreeing suit No. 30 of 1985 titled as Surendra Narain Misra v. S.K. Banerjee. Facts in detail, at the cost of brevity, are that the opposite party filed a suit for the ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent etc. against the applicant alleging that the applicant had committed default in the payment of rent that the applicant had made unauthorised constructions and that the applicant is guilty of converting the tenanted accommodation for user at variance for which it was let out to him thus violating the provisions as enshrined in Section 20 sub -sections (2)(a), (c) and (d) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the opposite party is the owner landlord of premises No. 5 Subhash Nagar, Mumfordganj, Allahabad, which was purchased by him for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - by a registered sale -deed dated 16.1.1981. The opposite party was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 200 per month besides water tax etc. of the said premises. It was alleged that the applicant without the permission in writing of the opposite party had made or permitted to be made unauthorised constructions. It has been farther alleged that the applicant fell in arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1984 to 31.5.1985 and did not pay it despite demand. It was also alleged that the applicant had started a school which is inconsistent with such use for which purpose the applicant was admitted to tenancy. On account of these violations a composite notice of demand dated 27.6.1985 was served on the applicant terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 4,218.20 being the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation besides water tax and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month from the date of the suit till the eviction of the tenant. As the applicant failed to comply with the requirements of the notice a suit as stated above was filed by the opposite party.
(3.) THE applicant filed a written statement and denied the averments as contained in the plaint. It was reiterated by the applicant that his tenancy is intact is continuing. It was contended that the suit property earlier belonged to one Shri Direndra Chandra Das who bequeathed the property to Shri Shardeshwari Ashram which is a religious and charitable trust by a registered Will dated 21.6.1961. One Shri T.C. Ghosh was looking after the property and collecting rent. The suit premises was let out to the applicant sometime in the year 1967 by Sri T.C. Ghosh. Initially the rent of the premises in suit was Rs. 125/ - in the year 1966 -67 but was later enhanced to Rs. 200/ - per month. It was very vociferously asserted by the applicant that no default has been committed by him but on the refusal of the opposite party to accept the rent it was sent by money order. It was categorically asserted by the applicant that at the time when the premises was let out to him no specific purpose for its user was agreed upon between the applicant and T.C. Ghosh. It was further asserted by the applicant that for a convenient and beneficial user of the tenanted portion and due to paucity of space a temporary tin Shed was laid on the roof with the permission of T.C. Ghosh. However, the applicant categorically denied that any permanent construction had been erected on the roof. It was further alleged by the applicant that his wife is running a small nursery school in the name and style of Gyan Deepika Kindergarten School in a fractional part of the verandah and the part of the tin Shed since the year 1969 with the knowledge and consent of the Trust, the powers, and T.C. Ghosh, It was categorically repudiated that any permanent construction had been made on the roof.;