HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10296 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 02.08.2014, whereby a decree of eviction was passed by the J.S.C. Court against the petitioners as well as, the order dated 21.10.2024, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that, the respondent-landlord filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 463 of 1979 claiming arrears of rent and ejectment. It was also stated that, material alterations were done to the property by the petitioner-tenant. In response to the said suit, written statement was filed on 15.12.1979 and the rent was also deposited. It is also stated that in addition to the said suit, an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was also preferred being P.A. Case No. 11 of 1979, however, the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on 14.04.1979, the S.C.C. Suit in question continued. It is stated that the suit in question was decreed vide judgment and order dated 04.02.1983 against which, a S.C.C. Revision No. 47 of 1984 was preferred, the said revision came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 09.02.1990, whereby the judgment of S.C. Court was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Court to decide the matter afresh specifically with regard to the allegation of damage to the property. After the remand, the suit was heard afresh and two points of determination were framed by the Small Causes Court, the S.C. Court, thereafter, proceeded to decide the said two points of determination taking into consideration the Commissioner's report on record as well as, the cross- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aftab Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : Hasnain Agha And Another .....Petitioner(s) Shahnaj Askari And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) examination of the defendant, the petitioner herein, wherein he has stated that on account of rains, the wall and ceiling have fallen down, the said fact was disbelieved in view of the self-contrary statements given in the written statement as well as, the report of the commissioner, which did not indicate dilapidated condition of the property as was sought to be projected by the petitioners. The suit ultimately came to be decreed once again on the ground of material alterations being carried out without the consent of the landlord. The said decision of the J.S.C. Court was passed on 02.08.2014, was challenged by preferring a Revision No. 63 of 2014. The said revisional court, considered the findings and affirmed the same in view of the findings of fact being recorded by the J.S.C. Court and the revision came to be dismissed on 21.10.2024. 4. Counsel for the petitioners while attacking the said two orders, argues that from perusal of the order sheets, it is clear that the file in question was transferred on 13.08.2024 and, thereafter, no notice was received by the petitioners as such, it was wrong to allege by the revisional court that the petitioners were also heard. It is further argued that apart from the commissioner's report, no evidence was given afresh after remand and, thus, the order of J.S.C. Court was bad in law. The said two contentions, merits rejection for the sole reason that the revisional court order records that the parties were heard, in case, the petitioners wanted to challenge the said finding, it was open for the petitioners to move a recall application, which is said to have been returned, both the courts below have recorded findings of facts with regard to material alterations carried out. This Court had also called upon the petitioners to address on the issues that, the petitioners might have argued before the revisional court, to satisfy the test of prejudice allegedly caused to have occurred on account of alleged non-hearing, he argues that the petitioners would have demonstrated before the revisional court that the property has fallen down on the ground of rains and not cause of the conduct of the petitioners. 5. The said contention cannot be looked into either by the revisional court or before this Court or the simple reason that there were inherent contradictions in the affidavits filed by the petitioners before the J.S.C. Court, as has been rightly noticed and also are in contradiction commissioner's report which does not record the dilapidated condition of the property as is being sought to be projected, in fact the petitioner had constructed a room in place of kitchen and bathroom. 6. The petitioner has lingered the litigation since 1978 as such, no good WRIA No. 10296 of 2025 2 ground for interference is made out. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. The trial court is directed to, execute the decree within a period of four months and to send a report to this Court through the Senior Registrar of this Bench. 8. The Senior Registrar is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for compliance of the directions given with regard to the eviction proceedings. September 8, 2025 Praveen WRIA No. 10296 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench