JUDGMENT

N.N. Mithal, J. - This is landlord's revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 whose suit for adjustment has been thrown out by the VI Additional District Judge, Kanpur.

2. The building was admittedly constructed in the year 1964 and consisted of four independent portions in which different tenants were in occupation The Defendant became a -tenant of the disputed portion some time in 1967 when the owner was residing out side Kanpur, where her husband was serving. On his retirement, they occupied one of the four portions in the building in July 1982.

3. According to the Plaintiff, the tenant was liable to adjustment on two grounds i.e. for making constructions which damaged and disfigured the building and for committing default in the payment of rent along with taxes as required by law despite notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 25th July 1983.

4. The Defendant denied the allegations. He pleaded an agreement to pay a fixed amount of Rs. 56.25 per month in addition to the monthly rent of Rs. 280/- inclusive of all taxes and future variations therein. According to him the burden of additional tax could not be recovered as rent from him. As for the alleged constructions, it was contended that the wall in the passage had already been demolished and no cause of action in that respect survived. The raising of the shed in the back-yard with corrugated asbestos sheet covering is admitted but since it had not been embedded in the main building, it was submitted that this did not amount to construction In any case, it was not such a construction as to fall within the mischief of Section 20 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.

5. The court below has upheld the tenants' pleas of the oral agreement. It further held that house-tax could not form part of rent, and that the landlord was only entitled to add so much of the water-tax calculated on the rent payable under the agreement and not on the assessed rental value. Even though no written permission was obtained, the shed did not amount to construction as it was temporary in nature and could be removed without causing any damage to the main structure. It was also held that it did not offend against any provision of the Act. The court also gave benefit of Section 20(4) to the tenant despite purchase of a residential building by him since the same had been demolished even before service of notice due to its dilapidated condition. On the strength of these findings the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved, the present revision has been filed.

6. All the findings recorded by the Court below have been assailed. Sri Tandon submits that these findings are based on total misreading and non consideration of material evidence. Several points have been assiduously canvassed before me which I propose to deal hereafter.

7. On the question of material alterations the revisionist has not very candidly, pressed any further her plea in respect of the wall raised in the passage since it had already been demolished. He mainly assailed the finding that the shed with a covering of corrugated asbestos sheet did not amount to ' construction ' within the meaning of Section 20(2)(c) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. According to this section, a tenant, was liable to adjustment if, without landlords' written permission, he makes any ' such construction ' or ' structural alteration ' in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. It is no body's case that any written permission had been obtained. The controversy raised lies in a narrow compass i.e. whether the structure admittedly raised amounts to ' construction ' or not? Admittedly the shed is supported on four poles embedded to the ground and is not fixed to the main structure of the building. It can easily be removed without causing any kind of damage to the property.

8. The revisionists' argument, however, is that for applying Section 20(2)(c) the conditions that must exist are:

(i) the tenant has made som