- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Premises No. 120/601, Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur of which Respon dent No. 3 (Smt. Indu Dixit) is the owner/landlady, was let out to Sheo Pratap Singh, present petitioner, on rent at the rate of Rs. 7257- per month at present. Detailed facts are not being given in view of the fact that I propose to direct the Revisional Court to decide the matter afresh on the reasons given herein.
(2.) SUIT No. 261 of 1991 was filed by the landlord for eviction, arrears of rent and dues before Judge Small Causes Court after serving notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. Copies of notice and plaint have been filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the Writ Petition. The landlord contended that tenant had made material alterations and changed the user by start ing a school therein. Tenant-Defendant filed written statement (Annexures 3 to Writ Petition) and stated that alleged additional con structions were with the consent and knowledge of the landlady. The Court of Judge Small Causes by means of the judgment and order dated 17th February, 1998 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition) decreed the suit on the ground of material alternation.
(3.) REVISION No, 52of 1998 was filed by Sheo Pratap Singh and the same has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27th August 1999 (Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition ). Petitioner has broadly raised follow ing grounds:- (1) No specific finding has been recorded for diminishing value of building by raising al leged constructions. (2) Value diminishing of property after alleged additional construction has been ig nored, particularly statements of DW1 and DW 2. (3) Plaintiff has not pleaded cause of ac tion regarding material alterations in the plaint inasmuch as no time or date, when alleged material alteration has been caused, has been disclosed in the plaint. (4) Constructions were made prior to the applicability of U. P. Act XIII of the 1972 and hence did not expose him to the penalty as a consequence of alleged material alterations under the Act. (5) The alleged alterations, according to the tenant, raised rental value, resulting in set tlement of higher rent, and duly accepted by the landlord. (6) The landlord was at 'sufferance' under the principle of 'waiver' since he allowed 'alleged alterations' and then settled and accepted higher rent; consequently he waived right of eviction against the tenant, even if he had one under law. Respondent No. 3, Smt. Indu Dixit, since appeared by filing Caveat Applica tion is represented by Shri Yashwant Verma, Advocate, and Shri S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate.;