The raising of a tin shed on the backyard of the disputed premises did not amount to disfigurement of the building, and the tenant was liable to pay the entire amount of rent and taxes, including the enhanced amount of water tax and 25% of the enhanced amount of house tax. The tenant was not entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act, as he had purchased a residential building.

N. N. Mithal, J.

1. This revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act was finally disposed of by this court on 28- 8-1986. Since reported in 1986 AWC 1214. The court had set aside the findings recorded by the trial court and after pointing out the errors which the trial court had committed, gave certain directions to the trial court and remanded the matter to it for deciding the suit afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. The tenant being aggrieved by the order passed by this court approached the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition by him was allowed and the matter was remanded to this court with a direction that the High Court itself should decide the questions passed by it instead of remanding the matter to the trial court. THIS is how the matter has come up again before this court for disposing of the revision.

2. Sri S. P. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant landlady and SRI Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the tenant opposite party both have been quite fair in stating that the observations made by this court on the points raised need not be reiterated and the court may, therefore, confine itself in deciding the controversies which were left for decision by the trial court after remand. In view of this categorical statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the court does not think it necessary to go over again on the points which had been considered by it earlier and the said judgment shall form an integral part of the findings that are proposed to given.

The controversy set at rest by the previous judgment dated 28-8- 1986 is that the structure raised by the opposite party in the backyard of the disputed premises was a 'construction' within the meaning of the said word in section 20 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. What, however, remains to be decided is whether the raising of that construction has disfigured the building so as. to come within the mischief of section 20 (2) (c).

3. The other point concluded on the earlier occasion was that the tenant was under a statutory liability to pay the entire amount of enhanced water-tax and one fourth of the enhanced amount of House-tax besides rent, since there was no contract in writing to the contrary. The question that remained so be decided on the question of default were (i) whether House-tax and Water tax paid by the defendant formed part of the rent;- (ii) whether the entire amount of rent etc. had been deposited to satisfy the condition of section 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972; and (iii) whether the defendant was not entitled to get the benefit of section 20 (4) having purchased a residential building ?

4. I propose to take up the first point first. The finding recorded by the trial court is that the offending structure was supported on poles embedded in the ground and is fastened to the building by means of angle iron brackets using nuts and bolts. The whole structure can be removed without causing any damage to the main building by unscrewing the nuts and bolts and thus dismantling it step by step. The trial court further found that there existed a 'U' wide road towards north i.e. to the back of the building. The question that remains to be decided is whether raising of structure of this nature which is visible from the road towards the north can amount to disfiguring the building ?

While the petitioner contended that the offending construction caused disfigurement of the building as it was open to view from the road on the north and had made the whole look of the building ugly, the plea of the tenant was otherwise. According to Sri Sudhir Chandra, by raising the tin shed neither any disfigurement has taken place nor the demised building has been affected in any manner.

5. In support, Sri Chandra has relied on some decisions of the Supreme Court and this court, such as Om Prakash v. Amar Singh, 1987 SC 617, Om Prakash v. VIII Additional District Judge, 1989 (1) ARC Tl9 and Mooli