Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sri Ramesh Chandra Rastogi v. Viiith A.D.J. And Others - WRIT - A No. 3285 of 1986 [2006] RD-AH 206 (3 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3285 of 1986

Ramesh Chandra Rastogi  Vs. VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Meerut and another


This is tenant's writ petition.  Landlord-respondent no.2 Prakash Chandra Gupta instituted suit for eviction against tenant-petitioner on the ground of structural alteration in the tenanted building under section 20(2) ( c ) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.  Building in dispute is a godown.  Landlord asserted that when the building in dispute was let out to the tenant-petitioner, it was in the form of three rooms and the tenant by removing the intervening walls converted the same into one big hall.  The suit was registered as SCC suit no.160 of 1983 (in Annexure-6 which is copy of judgment by the trial court it is wrongly mentioned as O.S. no.).  

JSCC, Meerut before whom the suit was instituted held that no alternation or structural change had been made out by the tenant and the building in dispute even at the time of letting out was in the form of one big hall.  Accordingly, suit was dismissed on 18.12.1984.  Against the said judgment and decree landlord-respondent no.2 filed SCC revision no.41 of 1985.  VIII A.D.J., Meerut  found the findings of the trial court to be perverse, reversed the same and held that intervening walls had been removed by the tenant and the said action squarely fell within the mischief of Section 20 (2) ( c ) of the Act.  The said clause is quoted below:

( c ):  That the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it;

The VIII A.D.J., Meerut through judgment and order dated 6.2.1981 allowed the revision, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent etc. at the admitted rate of rent of Rs.200/- per month (an additional amount of Rs.21/- per month is also payable as water tax).

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Sri R.K.Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for tenant-petitioner has argued that the findings recorded by the trial court were pure findings of fact hence revisional court while exercising jurisdiction under section 25 Provincial Small Causes Court Act could not reverse the same.  In the alternative it has also been argued that in case revisional court was of the opinion that findings of  fact recorded by the trial court were erroneous in law then the only course left open was to remand the matter.

I need not decide the above controversy in this writ petition for the reason that in my opinion even if it is assumed that intervening walls were removed by the tenant, it will not be covered by Section 20 (2) ( c ) of the Act.  Admittedly building in dispute was let out and is being used as godown.  Value or utility of a godown is not reduced by the reduction of number of compartments.  Moreover, a tenant who is using a building for a particular purpose is normally not expected to effect such changes in the building which may diminish its utility as he himself is using the same.  In this regard reference may be made to the following authorities of the Supreme Court.

1. Waryam Singh Vs. B.Singh (2003) 1 SCC 59

2. G.Raghunathan Vs. K.V.Varghese A.I.R. 2005 SCW 4086

3. Hari Rao Vs. N.Govindachari A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3389

In view of the above I find that judgment and order passed by the revisional court is erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside.

Writ petition is allowed.  Judgment and order passed by the revisional court is set aside.  Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored.  Suit of the plaintiff-respondent no.2 stands dismissed in respect of eviction.

I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C. 64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.  Building in dispute is a godown and is situate in Meerut which is quite near to Delhi - National capital.  Existing rent of Rs.200/- per month is highly inadequate.

Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from January - 2006 onward tenant-petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord-respondent no.2 at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.