Tenant-petitioner challenged judgments evicting him for alleged material alterations and sub-leasing. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings as free from perversity or error of law, dismissing the writ petition.
The writ petition for setting aside the eviction orders was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7582 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Respondent :- Smt. Manorma Mishra (Deceased) And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abu Bakht,Nitin Jain,Pramod Jain(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- Saurabh Srivastava
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.
This petition has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 26.08.2019 in SCC Revision No.68 of 2013, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Kanpur Nagar and the judgment dated 26.10.2013 in SCC Suit No.470 of 1985 (Smt. Manorma Mishra and others Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta), passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels of the parties.
It is admitted to the tenant-petitioner that the plaintiff-respondents are the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. Both the courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact based on detail consideration of relevant evidences on record that the tenant-petitioner has made material alteration in the disputed building which diminished its value and disfigured it and that the tenantpetitioner has sub-let the disputed building.
Both the aforesaid findings of fact are referable to the grounds of eviction provided in Section 20(2) (b/c) and (e) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The findings in the impugned judgments recorded by the courts below neither suffer from any perversity nor from any error of law nor any perversity or error of law could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in the petition. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 7.11.2019/vkg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the judgments of the courts below finding the tenant made material alterations and sub-let the premises under Section 20(2)(b/c) and (e) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamlesh Kumar Gupta
Smt. Manorma Mishra
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
