Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit filed by the landlords respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner for his eviction from the tenanted accommodation on the ground of material alteration and damage to the building as provided under section 20(2)(b) and (c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 90/78 on the file of J.S.C.C. Munsif, Shahjahanpur. The main allegation was that the shop in dispute consisted of two portions separated by a partition wall, which was removed by the tenant. The tenant admitted that he had removed the partition wall. Tenant also admitted that initially there was wooden roof which he converted into roof of garden and stone slab (Patia) in order to strengthen the same and for the said purpose two pillars were constructed at the place of the partition wall at both end. Tenant's version was that in November, 1977 thieves had broken the shop whereupon landlord permitted him to strengthen the accommodation by converting the roof into guarder stone slab roof; however, it was agreed that expenses for the said purpose would not be shared by the landlord either in cash or through adjustments in rent. There being no -written permission hence tenant cannot escape his liability of eviction if alterations made by him fall within the ambit of any of the above two provisions. Landlord had also alleged that northern wall of the shop had been cut in order to place pillar. This version was not accepted by the Trial Court on the basis of Commissioner's report. Similarly the case of the landlord that northern wall had been extended by five inches was also not believed by the Trial Court. However, tenant had admitted that northern and southern walls which were initially Katcha were totally removed by him and at their place Pacca wall on both sides were constructed by him. The Trial Court ultimately by judgment and decree dated 27.10.1979 dismissed the suit by holding that constructions made by the tenant neither damaged the building nor amounted to material alteration. Landlords respondents No. 2 and 3 filed revision against the said judgment and decree being Civil Revision No. 79/79. I.A.D.J., Shahjahanpur on 7.3.1981 allowed the revision, set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit for ejectment The Revisional Court placing reliance upon Dalip Singh v. Dropadi Devi,, 1979 ALJ 478 held that constructions made by the defendant amounted to substantial damages and alteration. Section 20(2)(b) and (c) are quoted below: (b) that the tenant has willfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damages to the building; (c) 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 or utility or to disfigure it. Converting Katcha wall into Pacca wall and converting wooden roof into linter roof neither damaged the building nor diminished its value or utility. On the other hand it strengthened the building and increased its value and utility and gave it a better look. As far as removal of the partition wall is concerned this also does not diminish the value or utility of the shop or disfigures it, for the reason that building in dispute was actually one shop having two portions separated by a partition wall. Under the facts of the case removal of partition wall will not be covered by any of the aforesaid provisions. The authority relied upon by the Revisional Court was not directly applicable to the facts of the case. In the said authority the finding was that tenant caused the removal of the wall separating the shop under his tenancy from stair case which caused damages to the building (para 6 ).
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the tenant petitioner has cited Sadhuram Samariya v. Raghunandan Arusia, 1979 ALJ 436. In the said authority in para 21 it was held "However, where a single accommodation is let out by the landlord to a tenant and that accommodation is internally divided by a partition wall, then the removal of the partition wall, unless it causes material physical damage to the accommodation cannot by itself amount to the making of such material alterations as would render the tenant liable to eviction under the provisions, of section 3(1)(c) of the Act (old Rent Control Act i.e. U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947). In the instant case it has been found by both the Courts below that removal of the partition wall did not cause least damage to the building. Accordingly view of the Revisional Court that alteration made by the tenant are covered either by section 20(2)(b) or 20(2)(c) of the Act is erroneous in law and liable to be set aside.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is restored. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J., : 2004 (55) ALR 586 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Accommodation in dispute is a shop situate in Shahjahanpur. The rent of Rs. 34 per month is extremely inadequate. Accordingly it is directed that w.e.f. May, 2005 onwards tenant petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord respondents at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month.;