- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted by landlord-respondent No. 3 in the form of SCC Suit No. 99 of 1982, Sudhir Kumar Bansal v. Hari Singh. In the plaint of the suit eviction was sought on the ground of default and material alteration. Ground of default no more survives as both the Courts below have decided the said point in favour of the tenant. The suit was decreed on the ground of material alteration as provided under Section 20 (2) (c) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1976 which is quoted below: "20 (2) (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. "
(2.) THE only allegation in the plaint was that courtyard (angan) of the house in dispute had been divided into two portions by raising wall of 12 feet in length and 4 to 5 feet in height and a door had been fixed in the middle of the said wall. JSCC/civil Judge Ist, Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and decree dated 17-9-1985 decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of material alteration. Against the said judgment and decree dated 17-9-1985 tenant filed Revision No. 76 of 1985. VIth A. D. J. , Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and order dated 22-4-1988 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition by the tenant. Revisional Court discussed an authority of this Court of 1982 (name of the journal is not clear in the judgment), where it was held that raising a partition wall in the middle of a shop did not amount to material alteration. Revisional Court distinguished the said authority on the ground that in the instant case wall had been raised in angan and not shop. The distinction is not understandable. Supreme Court in Waryam Singh v. Baldeo Singh, 2003 (1) SCC 59, has held that enclosing a veranda by a wall by itself does not amount to material alteration. The said case was under East Punjab Rent Control Act.
(3.) SUPREME Court in G. Raghunathan v. K. V. Vergeese, 2005 AIR SCW 4086, has held that closing the door and window by bricks lowering level of wall, cutting the rafters, erecting concrete pillars and fixing the rolling shutter does not amount to material alteration. That was a case from Keralla. Supreme Court in Hari Rao v. N. Gonvindachari, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3389, has held that putting up racks on the wall of a shop by drilling wholes does not amount to material alteration. In the above two authorities of the Supreme Court of 2005 several other earlier authorities of the Supreme Court pertaining to the question of material alteration have been considered.;