Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This civil revision arises out of the judgment of the Small Causes Court in proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act, 1974) in Small Causes Court Suit No. 28 of 2006.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff landlady filed a suit being JSC Suit No. 28 of 2006, Smt Santosh Kappor v. Manohar Lal Gaira, for eviction of the tenant from the shop in question and for giving possession to the plaintiff landlady thereof, together with arrears of rent of Rs. 39,600/-.

3. Briefly stated a suit was filed by the plaintiff landlady (respondent herein) being SCC Suit No. 28 of 2006 in respect of shop No. 19 situated in Gulzari Mal Dharmshala Road Moradabad, which was stated to have been let out to the revisionist-tenant for Rs. 1,100/- per month as rent. The allegation in the plaint was that the revisionist had committed default in payment of rent from June, 2003 till 22.7.2006 amounting to Rs. 41,506/- and also that he had made material alterations in the shop by digging up the flooring in the ground floor and carved out a basement without the consent or written permission of the landlady by digging a 2-3 feet deep basement and by constructing three steps leading to the said basement thereby diminishing the utility and value of the shop as contemplated in Section 20 (2) (c) of the Act 13 of 1972. The case was contested and a written statement was filed by the tenant (revisionist herein) and the allegations in the plaint were denied that any notice was served by the landlady on the tenant prior to filing of the suit as per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, Act. It has also been denied that any material or structural alterations had been made in the shop causing damage to it thereby diminishing its value or utility. The trial Court after hearing the parties and going through the documents on record has by the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 held that the tenant-revisionist had committed default in depositing the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing i.e. on 13.2.2007 and secondly that he had also made structural changes in the tenanted shop which had diminished the value of the shop and has therefore decreed the suit of the landlord and directed that the vacant possession of the disputed shop be handed over to the respondent-landlady within one month and also pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 39,600/- plus rent per month at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- w.e.f. 23.7.2006 till the date of handing over the possession of the premises.

4. I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar (Sharma), learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant-revisionist and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady and have perused the documents on record.

5. The trial Court framed five issues, namely:

1. Whether by the notice dated 20.6.2006 sent by the landlady to the tenant, the tenancy of the defendant had been terminated and also a demand for arrears of rent had been made.

2. Whether in compliance of the notice, the tenant had deposited the entire arrears of rent within the period of notice.

3. Whether the tenant on the first date of hearing had deposited the entire arrears of rent, the lawyers fee and other expenses as contemplated under Section 20(4) of the Act, 13 of 1972 and therefore entitled to the benefit thereof or not.

4. Whether the tenant had made structural alterations in the tenanted shop without the written permission of the landlady in April, 2004 and that such structural alterations by digging a 2-3 feet deep basement and constructing three steps leading thereto thereby diminishing the value and utility of the tenanted shop in question.

5. Whether the landlady was entitled for restoration of possession and arrears of rent of the tenanted shop in question.

6. The issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were taken up by the Court together and so far as the issue No. 1 is concerned, the Court below has reco