Unauthorized permanent constructions by the tenant without written permission led to eviction under Section 20(2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the tenant has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 9. 8. 2001 (Annexure-9) and judgment and order dated 17. 2. 1998 (Annexure-7) to the writ petition passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

( 2 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.

( 3 ) HEARD S/sri P. N. Saxena and Atul Dayal. learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri a. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the landlord respondent No. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

( 4 ) IN brief, the facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are as under.

( 5 ) IT appears that the landlord filed a S. C. C. Suit No. 261 of 1992 in the court of Judge, Small causes, Kanpur Nagar for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the premises in dispute and for recovery of arrears of taxes and damages till delivery of possession. The suit was filed with the allegations that the plaintiff was landlord of the premises No. 120/601, Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur nagar and a portion of the house was let out to the tenant-petitioner on rent at the rate of Rs. 725 per month. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the grounds that the tenant did not pay the taxes which were also payable as a part of rent since 1. 4. 1981. The tenanted accommodation was let out for the purposes of residence but he started running school without consent in writing of the landlord. The tenant further without permission of the landlord raised permanent constructions and made structural alteration in the building and thereby diminished its value and utility. Before filing the suit, a notice was also served on the tenant which was replied by him.

( 6 ) THE tenant filed written statement admitting relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. According to him, he was inducted as a tenant in the disputed premises in the year 1969 at a monthly rent of Rs. 400 for the purpose of running a school. Since strength of the students increased, the additional accommodation was required and he raised constructions at his own costs with the consent of the landlord, who enhanced the rent also from time to time. He committed no default in payment of rent which included taxes also. The defendant admitted that he made structural alteration and had raised permanent constructions but all was done with the consent and knowledge of the landlord. Moreover, the building in question was not disfigured and the alteration did not diminish the value, as alleged in the plaint.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff examined his Mukhtar Aam, Prakash Nath Dixit. On the other hand, the tenant examined himself and one T. P. Singh. The parties led documentary evidence also.

( 8 ) AFTER having considered the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Judge, Small Causes found that the tenant raised permanent constructions and made structural alteration in the building whereby value of the building was diminished and was disfigured. He, therefore, decreed the suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of taxes and damages also.

( 9 ) THE tenant filed S. C. C. Revision No. 54 of 1998 which was dismissed on 9. 8. 2001 and the finding of the court below regarding structural alteration was affirmed.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the tenant-petitioner has strenuously urged that the courts below decreed the suit for eviction of the tenant from the disputed premises on the grounds that the tenant had made permanent constructions in the front portion as well as back portion of the house without permission in writing of the landlord and thereby diminished the value and disfigured. According to him, the courts below committed an error of law in recording this finding without any pleading regarding date and