The court emphasized the grounds for ejectment under Section 20(2)(c) and clarified the impact of amendments on pending proceedings.

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 3.

2. The dispute relates to a shop situated at Waqf Majid Turkmanpur near Kabristan Mubarak Khan Shaheed, Mohallala Turkmanpur City Gorakhpur. The petitioner, Laxmi Prasad, (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs), is the tenant and the respondent no. 3 is the landlord of the shop in dispute.

3. The respondent no. 3 filed Suit No. 162 of 1988 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Gorakhpur alleging that tenant has committed default in payment of rent and despite notice dated 17.08.1988 has not paid the rent. Hence, his tenancy was terminated and hence is liable for ejectment on the ground mentioned in Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 (hereinafter referred as to "Act, 1972").

4. The suit was contested by petitioner. The Trial Court vide judgment 19.07.1994 decreed the suit and directed petitioner tenant to handover vacant possession of the disputed shop to the landlord, besides payment of arrears of rent, damages (pendente lite) and cost of the suit. The revisional court confirmed Trial Court's judgment by dismissing petitioner's Civil Revision No. 189 of 1984 vide judgment dated 19.03.1990.

5. The only question up for consideration is, the property in question, being a Waqf Property, in view of amendment inserted in 1994 in Section 2(1) exempting application of Act, 1972 to a Waqf Property, whether the suit was liable to abate and could not have continued thereafter. It has said that the amendment came into force on 26.09.1994. It has further been contended that the notice terminating tenancy was given on the ground under sub-section (2)(a) of Section 20 of Act, 1972 while the suit has been decreed on the ground under sub-section (2)(c) of Section 20, Act, 1972 which was not permissible and the impugned judgment therefore is liable to be set aside.

6. However, this Court finds no force in any of the submissions.

7. Considering the second submission at the foremost, the Court finds that in para 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint, it is alleged that material alteration has caused damage to the disputed accommodation and it is without any permission of landlord, making structural alteration in the building. The Trial Court has referred to the tenant's own admission that entire disputed building was demolished and thereafter, a new construction was raised. He has also recorded a finding that since entire earlier structure has been removed from the site, it would result in disfiguring the disputed building attracting Section 20(2)(c) of Act 1972. Besides, it has also recorded the finding of fact that there was default in payment of rent, arrears and other amount which was also not deposited by tenant on the first date of hearing. Hence, sub-section (4) of Section 20 would not help the tenant. Before the revisional court, it appears that the tenant raised only one ground i.e. his entitlement for benefit of Section 20 sub-section (4) which has been considered by Revisional Court. It has held that tenant is not entitled for such benefit having failed to deposit requisite amount on the first date of hearing. Besides, it has also considered question of validity of notice, demolition of entire rented accommodation and new construction raised by the tenant and thereafter has confirmed Trial Court's judgment.

8 Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show anything so as to entitle himself for the benefit of Section 20 sub-section (4) of the Act.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 20(2)(c) unless a finding is recorded that the construction or structural alteration in the building is likely to diminish value or utility of the building in question or it has disfigured it, no decree for ejectment can be passed on the ground under Section 20(2)(c) of Act 1972. This Court finds that the tenant sought per