ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition filed by the petitioners who are the tenant of the accommodation in question challenge the orders dated 6 -4 -1998 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition) passed by the trial Court and the order passed by the revisional Court dated 20 -11 -2004 (Annexure -11 to the writ petition). The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:
(2.) THAT the landlord -plaintiff after serving the notice determining the tenancy of the petitioners filed a suit being Suit No. 105 of 1984 for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground firstly that the petitioners are in arrears of rent and has not paid the same inspite of notice being served on him and secondly that the petitioners have made structural alteration in the accommodation in dispute which has diminished its value and utility. The trial Court after exchange of the pleadings and evidence on record, by the judgment and order dated 26 -3 -1990 decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby petitioner preferred a revision being SCC Revision No. 41 of 1990 which was allowed by the revisional Court and the matter was remanded back to be decided afresh in the light of the observations made in the order of the revisional Court. On remand the trial Court again decreed the suit by the order dated 17 -11 -1992 against which the petitioner preferred a revision being SCC Revision No. 148 of 1992. The revisional Court again allowed the revision and the matter was remanded to the trial Court to be decided in the light of the observations made by the revisional Court. The trial Court after remand again by the order dated 6 -4 -1998 decreed the suit on the ground of material alteration. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground of arrears of rent and ejectment on that basis. Against this, petitioner -tenant preferred a revision being SCC Revision No. 60 of 1998 which has been dismissed by the revisional Court by the order dated 20 -11 -2004. Thus, this writ petition. So far as the point regarding petitioner's being in arrear of rent is concerned, the trial Court dismissed the suit which is maintained by the revisional Court and since the landlord has not filed any revision against the order of the trial Court dismissing the suit on the ground of arrears of rent the suit stood dismissed so far as that ground is concerned. This writ petition is confined only to the point on which the trial Court decreed the suit, i.e. on the point of material alteration and revisional Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. The revisional Court have categorically recorded the finding that the case set up by the petitioner -tenant is that these constructions were in existence since 1959 when the tenancy was created in favour of the defendant's predecessor namely, their father. The revisional Court has considered the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and affirmed the finding arrived at by the trial Court to the effect that the constructions were raised some time in the year, 1983 -84. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court has also recorded the finding that the petitioner has taken inconsistent stand so far as the reply of the notice and the written statement is concerned. In view of the aforesaid fact trial Court analysed the evidence that the constructions were raised after 1959 and sometime in the year, 1983 -84. There is no dispute with regard to this aspect of the matter, in view of the law that the construction raised by the petitioner are of the nature which alters the accommodation in dispute and diminishes its utility. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tries to challenge these findings arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court to the effect on the strength of the decision of this Court reported in 1999 ARC (1) page 74, Zubeda Khatoon and Ors. v. VIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow and Ors., wherein this Court relied upon the observations made in the decision of the apex Court in the case reported in 1987 (1) ARC 185 (SC), Om Prakash v. Amar Singh, which reads as under: The Act does not define either the word 'material' or the word 'altered'. In the absence of any legislative definition of the aforesaid words it would be useful to refer to the making given to these words in dictionaries. Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the words 'alter' as change in 'character', 'position', 'materially' as an adverb means 'important' essentially concerned with matter not with form. In words and Phrases (Permanent Edition) one of the meanings of the word 'alter' is to make change, to modify to change, change of a thing from one form and set to another. The expression alteration with reference to building means 'substantial' change varying, change the form or the nature of the building without destroying its identity. The meaning given to those two words show that the expression 'materially altered' means a substantial change in the character, form and the structure of the building without destroying its identity. It means that the nature and character of change or alteration of the building must be of essential and important nature.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 1984 ARC (1) page 207, Murli Dhar and Anr. v. IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura and Anr., Para 5 thereof is relevant which is reproduced below: (5) 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 use of two earlier wards that is disminishing 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 goods he has done to building. ;