JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

This is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, questioning the decree of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, besides mesne profits, passed concurrently by the two Courts below.

2. S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2015 was instituted by Ravi Shanker Nigam, the plaintiff-respondent, seeking eviction of the defendant-petitioner, Har Narain Singh, from the shop detailed at the foot of the plaint, giving rise to the suit, besides a decree for recovery of rent in the sum of Rs. 5035/- and damages for use and occupation in the sum of Rs. 5050/-, aggregating to a figure of Rs. 10085/-. In addition, the plaintiff has sought a decree for pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day, besides costs of the suit. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff-respondent (for short, 'the landlord'), pleading a cause of action that he is the landlord of the demised shop, wherein the defendant-petitioner (for short, 'the tenant') is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Needless to say that exemption from the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act') has not been pleaded and it is common ground between parties that the Act applies. The suit has been instituted on the ground of actionable default under Section 20(2)(a) and structural alteration under Section 20(2)(c) of the Act.

3. It is the landlord's case that the tenant was in default of rent since 1.2.1996 and further that he had, without the permission in writing by the landlord, made construction as well as structural alteration in the demised shop, which tended to diminish its value, utility and disfigure it. The basis of pleading a case of structural alteration was the fact that according to the landlord, the tenant, without his permission, had partitioned the demised shop into two and caused the tile worked roof to be removed and replaced by a different roof, supported by girders and covered by stone-slabs. In addition, was the landlord's case that the existing door of the shop had been removed and replaced by another. All these changes were said to constitute structural alteration, that tended to diminish the utility of the demised shop and disfigure it.

4. The landlord served the tenant a notice to quit dated 26.9.2014, asking him to deliver vacant possession of the demised shop, upon expiry of 30 days of receipt of the notice. The notice dated 28.9.2014 was answered by the tenant by a reply dated 18.10.2014 on incorrect facts, refusing to vacate the shop and denying his liability to pay arrears of rent, besides damages for use and occupation demanded. The notice to quit was one composite under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the T.P. Act') and Section 20 of the Act. The suit was instituted by the landlord with the notice to quit being not complied with by the tenant. The suit was registered on the file of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi as S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2015.

5. The tenant put in a written statement and contested the suit. It was pleaded in the written statement that the demised shop was let out to the tenant's father between the years 1962-63 by the then landlord, Laxmi Shankar Nigam at a monthly rent of Rs. 17.20. The tenant's father, prior to him, was the tenant in the demised shop. After his death, the tenant inherited the tenancy on the same terms and has held the demised shop in the same right, paying rent to Laxmi Shanker Nigam at the rate of Rs. 17.20 per month. The last rent, that was paid to Laxmi Shanker Nigam, was in the month of December, 1995. It is the further case of the tenant that thereafter the tenant tendered rent by hand to Laxmi Shanker Nigam and then sent it at his correct postal address by money order on 1.1.1996, which he refused to accept. In consequence, the tenant instituted Misc. Case No. 110 of 1996, Har Narain Singh v. Laxmi S