KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Heard Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under:

Respondent-landlord filed S. C. C. Suit No. 18 of 1996 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant. The suit was filed mainly on two grounds; arrears of rent and material alteration done by the petitioner-tenant which disfigured the building. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner-tenant moved an application claiming benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act. No. 13 of 1972 (for short the act) on the ground that he has already deposited the entire amount of rent etc. as claimed before the first date of hearing of the suit and as such he be relieved of the decree of eviction. The Judge, Small Causes Court vide order dated 20-10-2004 held that since the eviction has also been sought on the ground of material alteration in the building resulting in its disfigurement and as such the tenant cannot be relieved from the decree of eviction. The other objection raised by the tenant-petitioner that respondent-landlord has failed to give details and particulars of the alleged illegal construction in paragraph 7 of the plaint as such the plaint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document