Unauthorized material alterations causing disfigurement and reduced utility of the premises can constitute grounds for ejectment under relevant tenancy laws.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra, for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Dubey, for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur dated 12.10.2012 decreeing SCC Suit No. 5 of 2007 filed by Parasram Goel and sons and others for arrears rent and ejectment of the petitioner and Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Saharanpur dated 14.08.2014, dismissing SCC Revision No. 69 of 2012, filed by the petitioner and SCC Revision No. 65 of 2012 filed by Parasram Goel and sons and others against the aforesaid decree.

3. Parasram Goel and sons and others (the respondents) filed a suit (registered as SCC Suit No. 5 of 2007) under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute and arrears of rent and mesne profit. The plaint case was that the respondents were landlord of the shop in dispute and the petitioner was tenant in it on the rent of Rs. 318/- + house tax and water tax. The petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent since 01.04.2005. In spite of demand of rent, the petitioner has not paid rent as such his tenancy was terminated through registered letter dated 02.12.2006 (served on 06.12.2006). In spite of service of notice, the petitioner has neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated shop in dispute, after expiry of the period of one month. The petitioner has unauthorisedly made material alteration in the shop in dispute without consent of landlord causing substantial damage in it. In the western side of the shop, there was a verandah but by making alteration, existence of verandah was taken away. In the western side of the shop, there were two doors, which were removed by the petitioner. In the eastern side of the shop, there was one small room constructed for using as a store but it was demolished and its door was removed. In the eastern side of the shop, there was some open land surrounded in boundary wall, in which there was a door in southern side but the petitioner has removed the door and raised permanent construction at this place and by raising the height of boundary wall, a tin shed construction has been raised over the open land. The eastern door of the shop was also removed and it eastern wall was demolished. Due to which, the shape of the shop was disfigured.

4. The petitioner contested the suit and filed his written statement and denied the allegations of the plaint. In additional plea, it has been alleged that the landlord was insisting to enhance the rent arbitrarily 25 times of the existing rent which was not accepted by the tenant therefore suit was malafide filed on false allegations concealing the material facts. The petitioner sent the arrears of the rent through money order on 12.06.2006, which was got return from post office, than the petitioner deposited rent in Case No. 39 of 2006 under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, of which landlord had full knowledge. After receiving summons of this suit, entire amount claimed by the landlord has been deposited under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, in this suit unconditionally. Allegations, regrading material alteration in the shop in dispute are totally false. In the verandah existing in western side of the shop, the shutter was affixed with the consent of the landlord as western verandah was part of the shop in dispute. The western doors were removed with the consent of landlord and handed over to them. There was neither any store room in the eastern side of the shop nor it was demolished by the petitioner. Open land, surrounded by boundary wall, lying in the eastern side of the shop, in which there was a door in southern side was also in the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner has not removed the door but only raised temporary construction behind the door which can be removed at any time. With the consent of the landlord, height of boundary wall was raised on whic