Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Km. Shaili Saxena, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri Vipin Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Goel, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

2. The dispute relates to a shop No. 251 situated at Mohalla Bazar Shahdana Road, Bareilly. The petitioner is the landlord of aforesaid shop and respondent No. 2 is tenant. The shop had two portions. On the back side, there was a covered room having a door and on the front side also it has a separate room with the door open on the road side.

3. The petitioner-landlord filed Suit No. 98 of 1991, seeking a decree of eviction of respondent-tenant from shop in question on the ground that he has made material alteration by demolishing the partition wall and door from back side room in the shop and has raised a new construction, making the two portions of shop as one and thereby not only has diminished its value but even the construction has been weakened and shop’s utility and value has been reduced. The entire alteration has been made without any authority and consent of landlord and this alteration also caused the landlord to face a litigation with Bareilly Development Authority. On account of damage and material alteration to the accommodation in question the tenancy of respondent No. 2 was terminated vide notice dated 13.8.1991, which the tenant refused to receive and it was returned back with endorsement of refusal by postal department.

4. The Trial Court framed three issues and issue No. 2 relates to alleged material alteration, i.e., whether there is any substantial alteration causing disfiguring or reducing the utility or value of shop in question. The Trial Court recorded a finding in favour of landlord and also held that alteration has been made without consent of landlord and consequently, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 6.1.1995. The respondent No. 2, i.e., the tenant took up the matter in SCC Revision No. 3 of 1995. The Revisional Court, however, has reversed Trial Court’s decision and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 28.5.1996, hence this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question, whether there is any material alteration causing disfiguring or reducing value or utility of building is a finding of fact and the Revisional Court has completely erred in law by interfering with such finding of fact, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. In the alternative, it is contended that the findings recorded by Trial Court were neither perverse nor can be said to be based on no evidence and the mere fact that the alteration was of such nature that it resulted in a complete new construction, it cannot be said that since it is a new construction and has added beauty to the shop, there is no alteration or diminution. If an old building is completely erased and new building is raised, strength and show of new building would obviously be different but that would not protect the tenant from eviction on the ground of substantial alteration resulting in disfiguring the accommodation.

7. I propose to consider the second issue first and then will look into the question, whether Revisional Court was justified in interfering with findings of Trial Court or not.

8. The suit filed by petitioner-landlord was clearly on the ground for eviction provided in Section 20(2)(c) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”), which reads as under:

“20. (2) A suit for 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:

. . . . . . . .

(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;” (emphasis added)

9. The kind of alteration which was alle