S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) In spite of sufficient service, no one has appeared on behalf of landlady respondent No.3, Smt. Prayag Devi. Landlady respondent instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 135 of 1994 against tenants petitioners before J.S.C.C. , Agra for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Landlady asserted that rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month and tenants asserted that rate of rent was Rs. 18 per month and they was not defaulters. In respect of material alteration and damages to the building, which was also alleged by the landlady, it was held by Trial Court that defendant No.1 constructed bat room removing the intervening wall of box room, which amounted to material alteration, Ultimately, suit for eviction was decreed on the ground of material alteration by J.S.C.C., Agra on 5.3.1999. Against the said judgment and decree, both parties filed revisions, which were registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 77 of 1999 and S.C.C. Revision No. 88 of 1999. First revision was filed by the tenants and second by the landlords. Revisional Court/IIIrd, Additional District Judge, Agra dismissed both the revisions and upheld the decree passed by the Trial Court, Both the Courts below decreed the suit only on the ground of material alteration. The material alteration, which has found by the Courts below is to the effect that the defendant tenant removed intervening walls of box room, latrine and a room.
(2.) In my opinion, even if these alterations were made by the defendant, it did not amount to material alteration or structural changes diminishing the value or utility of the building or impaired the same. Removing the intervening wall does not amount to material alteration as used under Section 20 (2) (b) of the Act. It was not alleged or found that he said alteration caused any damage to the building. In this regard reference may be made to Waryam Singh v. Baldev 2003 SCFBRC 10 : (2003) (1) S.C.C. 59), G. Raghunathan v. K.V. Varghese A.I.R. 2005 SCW 4086 : 2005 SCFBRC 535 : 2005 (2) ARC Suppl. 159 and AIR 2005 SC 3389 : 2006 SCFBRC 76 "Hari Rao v. N. Govindachari".
(3.) It was only and only on the ground of material alteration that the suit was decreed by the Courts below.;