JUDGMENT

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioner being the tenant of the property in question has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.01.1998 (Annexure-8), passed by respondent no. 3, i.e., learned Civil Judge (J.D)-cum-Judge, SCC Court, Haridwar, and the confirming the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge/3rd FTC, Haridwar (Annexure-10) on 30.11.2006.

2. The facts of this case may be narrated briefly as follows:

The property in question was let out to the father of the petitioner late Gyaneshwar Prasad about 50 years ago for a sum of Rs. 4.69 paisa. In the year 1988, the sole respondent (since deceased, substituted by respondent no. 1/1 & 1/2) filed an application under Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') with the prayer that the petitioner be evicted from the property in question as he has converted the use of the premises let out and there was a material alteration of the same without the consent of the landlord. For proper appreciation, the exact pleadings raised the plaintiff in the plaint at paragraph 3 and its consequence reply by the defendant-petitioner is reproduced herein below:

ß;g fd izfroknh uañ 1 us iz'uxr lEifRr fjgk;'k gsrq fdjk;s ij yh Fkh ysfdu mlus fcuk jtkeUnh oknh iz'uxr lEifRr esa vukf/kÑr :Ik ls rksM+ QksM+ djds rFkk jn~nkscny djds dejs ds chp nhokj cukdj mls nks Hkkxksa esa foHkDr dj fn;k gS rFkk ,d Hkkx esa O;olkf;d dk;Z izkjEHk dj jgs gSa rFkk dejs dh iwoZ dh vksj fLFkr nhokj dks rksM+dj njoktk yxk fn;k gS ,oa vukf/kÑr :Ik ls jlksbZ dk uofuekZ.k djds lEifRr ds ewyHkwr ढ+kaps esa ifjorZu djds uqdlku igqapk;k gS ftlls mldh dher ?kVh gSA^^

The aforesaid paragraph is translated by us, as follows:

That the defendant no. 1 was granted the rented premises for the purpose of residence but he without the consent of the plaintiff, un-authorisedly changed the property, constructed a wall between it by dividing it in two parts, and started using one of the part for commercial purpose and that he broke open the part of the wall sanding on the East side and put a door on it, and, thereafter un-authorisedly constructed a kitchen thereby changing the original nature of the property and thereby, damaged the property, which has reduced its value.

At the para 10 of the written statement, appearing at page 26 of the brief, the defendant has responded to paragraph 3 as follows:

ß;g fd oknh dk vius okni= esa ;g rgjhj djuk drbZ xyr o vlR; gS fd viuh fdjk;snkjh okyh lEifRr esa dksbZ rksM+QksM+ fdlh fdLe dh gks ;k fd dksbZ jn~nkscny djds dejs ds chp nhokj cukdj mls nks Hkkxksa esa foHkkftr dj fn;k x;k gks ;k fd dejs dh iwoZ dh vksj fLFkr nhokj dks rksM+dj njoktk yxk fy;k gks ;k fd jlksbZ dk uofuekZ.k dj fy;k gks ;k fd fdjk;snkjh okyh lEifRr dks ewyHkwr ढk¡ps ifjorZu djds dksbZ uqdlku igqapk;k gks ftlls mldh vly dher ?kVh gS cfYd vly okdk ;g gS fd oknh us tkucw>dj izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh okyh lEifRr dk xyr fooj.k fn;k gS izfroknuh dh fdjk;snkjh esa ,d nqdku nks [kuh rFkk mlds ihNs ,d NksVk lk Vhuiks'k LVksj pyk vkrk gS] fdjk;snkjh okyh lEifRr esa izfnoknuh eksVj fjis;lZ dk dke Lons'k eksVj odZ'kkWi uke ls djrh gSA blds foijhr oknh dk leLr dFku loZFkk xyr feF;k o vekU;uh; gSA^^

It is translated as below:

“The defendant has not made any kind of alteration by breaking the let out property and that he has not put a wall dividing the property in to two parts and that he has not fixed a door on the Eastern part or erected a kitchen thereon. He submits that the plaintiff has made misleading statement in the plaint."

In course of the trial, the defendant-petitioner has been examined as DW1. In the cross-examination, appearing at page 41, he has stated that his age is 30 years and the tenancy is continuing before his birth. He could not say about the profession of his father when he took the property on rent, the rent is Rs. 4.69 paisa per month. He has further sta