S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is landlord's writ petition. Landlord-petitioner filed suit for eviction against tenant-respondent No. 2, Radhey Shyam, in the form of SCC Suit No. 59 of 1984. Judge Small Causes Court/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Bulandhshahr through judgment and decree dated 22.8.1990 decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of damage to the building and material alterations as provided under Section 20(2)(b) and (c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Against the said judgment and decree tenant-respondent No. 2 filed SCC Revision No. 43 of 1990. Xth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr through judgment and order dated 31.7.1992 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree in respect of eviction and dismissed the suit for eviction, hence this writ petition by the landlord.
(2.) It was alleged by the landlord and found proved by the Courts below that tenant had placed a tin shed over iron poles. Before the Revisional Court it was argued on behalf of the landlord that the aforesaid construction amounted to damage to the building. It was specifically stated before the Revisional Court that landlord was not pressing the ground of disfigurement of the building.
(3.) The Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Amar Singh, AIR 1987 SC 617: 1987 SCFBRC 105 : 1987 (1) ARC 185, has held that such temporary constructions which may be removed without any substantial damage to the demised premises do not amount to material alteration. Supreme Court in Waryam Singh v. B. Singh, 2003 (1) SCC 59 : 2003 SCFBRC 10, has held that enclosing front Varandah by walls and placing rolling shutter does not amount to material alteration or damage to the building. In this regard reference may also be made to a decision reported in G. Raghunathan v. K.V. Verghese, 2005 AIR SCW 4086 : 2005 SCFBRC 535, wherein it was held that closing the door and window by bricks lowering level of floor, cutting the rafters, erecting concrete pillars and fixing the rolling shutters do not amount to damage to the building or material alteration. Supreme Court in Hari Rao v. N. Govindachari, AIR 2005 SC 3389 : 2006 SCFBRC 77, has held that putting up racks on walls by drilling holes does not amount to material alteration or damage to the building. In the instant case no construction whether temporary or permanent was made by the tenant. Placing tin shed over iron poles does not amount to material alterations or damage to the building. If pucca shed had been constructed by the tenant then it should have amounted to material alteration as held by the Supreme Court in British Motor Car Co. v. M.C. Saggi, 2005 (1) SCC 82 : AIR 2005 SC 240 : 2005 SCFBRC 17.;