R. M. Sahai J. - (1.) THE only controversy that survives for consideration in this tenant's petition arising out of suit filed for arrears of rent and ejectment under Section 20 (2) of U. P, Act XIII of 1972 is if the alterations made by the petitioner in building were covered in sub-clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 20. THE ejectment was sought because petitioner was in arrears of rent, had sub-let the premises and had materially altered the constructions which had diminished the value of the building. THE suit was dismissed by trial Court as it found that claim of opposite party was not established. In revision the finding that petitioner was not in arrears of rent and that he had not sub-let the premises was maintained. But the order was set aside and decree for ejectment was granted as petitioner had completely changed the nature and shape of the property which disfigured it entirely.
(2.) SUB-clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 reads as under: "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 of utility or to disfigure it." For seeking ejectment under this clause the landlord is required to prove that the constructions were made without his permission and that they have either diminished the value of the building or its utility or disfigured it. Each of these are questions of fact. which have to be decided on evidence on record. But if the finding recorded is based on evidence on which no reasonable person can come to conclusion that the value of the building has diminished or disfigured then the order is liable to interference by this Court. Even if the inference drawn is found to be arbitrary the order has to be quashed. These terms which can better be explained than defined have to be constructed strictly as they carve out exception against the tenant who is otherwise immune from eviction and is protected statutorily. Alterations made by petitioner have been found to be conversion of small and old kothari by new pucca room, fixing of a Filter pump for smooth supply of water, tin shed and two new rooms, urinal etc. Further the Prescribed Authority found that petitioner was carrying on business of wire manufacturing in it. Even earlier the business was carried on by previous tenants who had put tin shed etc. with permission of landlord. According to him these alterations instead of diminishing the value or utility of premises have enhanced it. It was also held that by these alterations and constructions the building was not disfigured. The revising authority held that even if construction of tin-shed etc. and fixation of a water pump is ignored as constructions were of temporary nature the conversion of old room into new and raising of two rooms and urinal completely changed the nature and shape of property and disfigured it entirely.
(3.) DISFIGURE has been defined in Webster to mean 'to make less complete, perfect or beautiful or deface, deform or disguise by changing the figure or appearance.' Normally the word is understood as spoiling the appearance or sullying it. Although one of the meanings as seen above is to disguise the appearance by changing the figure. But the basic characteristic appears to be same that is disguising it by spoiling, injuring etc. Apart from the dictionary meaning a word should be understood in the context it has been used. The user of two earlier words that is diminishing the value of the building or its utility shows that disfiguring should also be understood in somewhat similar sense. That is it must result in spoiling it. If the constructions raised by tenant enhances the value and increases its utility it is difficult to agree that it shall amount to disfiguring it. That does not appear "to be Legislative intention. A tenant should not suffer eviction for the good he has done to building. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the revising authority is quashed in part. The finding in respect of arrears of rent and sub-letting is affirmed. But the finding that by raising the constructions the petitioner had disfigured the building is set aside. The revision shall be decided on this limited aspect afresh. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;