N.N.Mithal - (1.) THE tenant, who is petitioner here, is challenging the decision of the Small Cause Court and of the revisional court confirming the earlier decision by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) A suit for ejectment was filed by opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 8 on the ground that the petitioner-tenant had made certain alterations in the rear portion of the kotha let out to him and had also raised some other construction on the plaintiff's adjoining land without his written permission which has caused substantial damage to the property and has also disfigured the same reducing its value. The defendant admitted having reconstructed the rear portion of the Kotha as the same was badly leaking and its condition had become very ruinous needing reconstruction. As regards the constructions made on the adjoining land, the dispute is subject to another suit which is pending between the parties in Second Appeal before this Court. One of the pleas by the defendant was that the portion where those constructions had been raised also forms part of his tenancy. Apart from the question of material alteration, the plaintiffs also based their suit on default in payment of rent. Both the courts have recorded a finding that rent was in arrears against the petitioner when the suit was filed. However, the revisional court has held that on the first date of hearing i. e on 4-1-1979, the tenant got a tender for depositing the arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit passed by the Court and actually deposited the amount in the treasury on the very next date and thus successfully complied with Section 20 (4) of the Act. The opposite parties have, very fairly, not raised this issue any more before me. The only point that has been ardently pressed before me is that even if the defendant had made any structural alterations in the building, it was still necessary to record a further finding that as a result of this there had been either diminution in the value or utility of the building or disfigurement of the demised premises. It will, however, be only proper here to have the relevant portion of section 20 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, which is extracted below :- "(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely :- (a........................... (b) ........................... (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."
(3.) BEFORE this clause can be applied, the plaintiff in order to succeed must establish the following :- (i) That the tenant has made or permitted to be made construction or structural alteration in the building ; (ii) that this was done without the permission in writing of the landlord ; and (iii) that the said construction or structural alteration is likely either : (a) to diminish its value ; or (b) to diminish its utility ; or (c) to disfigure it. The above analysis of the section will show that any structural alteration or construction in the building in the absence of written consent of the landlord per se is not enough for decreeing the landlord's suit for eviction for he must further establish that the construction complained of had resulted in either diminishing the value or utility of the building or in disfiguring the same. If none of these is not proved the suit for eviction on this ground must fail. I am fortified in what I have said above by the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Mool Narain Mehrotra v. Smt. Gulab Devi, 1988 AWC 295;