The order was set aside by the District Judge in revision as the respondent having admitted that the alterations were made on or before 1968 and when the respondent issued a numberice in 1970 and the appellant gave assurance that he would number make any further companystruction or companymit any wrongful act, numberproceedings were taken against him, it amounted to companydoning the act of making structural changes without obtaining his companysent.
The order was set aside as the provision of law being clear that any alteration or changes under Section 20 2 c companyld be made only with the companysent of the landlord, the revising authority companymitted an error of law in allowing the appeal on inference that the respondent was precluded from seeking eviction of the appellant on ground of structural changes.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court rendered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in proceedings arising out of the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction from the suit premises.
The trial companyrt found that there were numberarrears of rent and companysequently the suit for recovery of rent and companypensation was dismissed.
This order was challenged by the landlord in writ petition.
But it found that the appellant had made certain structural changes, therefore, he was liable to eviction.
The suit was filed in 1981.
