JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - This is a Defendant's revision arising out of a Wit for ejectment and recovery of. arrears of rent. 2. The suit was based on the allegation that tfaie Defendant-tenant lad made material alterations in the accommodation in contravention of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 20 of the Rent Control Act No. XIII of 1972. He was hence liable to eisetment. This case -was upheld by the trial court which decreed the suit,, The tenant WfAtttDin jevWon, The learned District Judge substantially upheld the findings and, dismissed the revision, Agfrjeyed, the tenant has come to this Court in revision. 3. Thd appHoturwaf the tenant of two fcothris and a verandah (dalan) in front of them. This aceonrmodation had tiled roofs which rested on kucbha mud walls. It was used as a shop. 4. The findings are that in the monsoon season of 1971 rainfall was heavy. The mud walla started crumbling down. The Defendant gave notice to the Plaintiff-landlady to effect requisite repairs, but no heed was paid. The Defendant constructed pucca walls on three sides of the kothris by the side of the mud walls, but inside the kothri. He also changed the tiled roofs and placed tin shed. The brick walls rested on the ground without any foundations. These constructions did not change the figure of the accommodation. The accommodation retained its, original shape and form. The original kuchcha walls had fallen down and were not in existence. The area of the original accommodation was reduced by about 9 " in in width on the three sides by tie construction of the walls. It was found that this structural alteration caused damage to the original building in violation of Clause (b) of Sections of the Act. The learned District Judge further held that due to the reduction of the floor area of the accommodation, its value and utility was diminished. The original structure has completely disappeared and in its place a new structure has been substituted. 5. The further finding is that all these constructions and alterations were made without the permission in writing of the landlady. The contravention of Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 20 entailed liability to ejectment. 6. Mr. Sachidanand Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the courts below have misapprehended the true scope of Clauses (b) and (c) and have misapplied them. The contravention of Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 20 entailed liability to ejectment. 6. Mr. Sachidanand Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the courts below have misapprehended the true scope of Clauses (b) and (c) and have misapplied them. The aforesaid clauses are as follows: 20(2). A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may tie instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely, (a) . . . . (b) that the tenant has willfully causes or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building; (c) that the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it; 7. Clause (b) applies where the tenant has wilfully caused substantial damage to the building. This clause will be attracted where it is established that the tenant knowingly or intentionally caused damage. On facts it has been found that because of heavy rains, the mud walls started crumbling and fell down. The Defendant raised brick 'Witt 10 that he could continue to use that accommodation for the purposes of his business in the shop as before. The Defendant did not deliberately demolish lie mud walls in order to make brick walls. The damage to the mud walls WW caused by excessive rainfall. They started crumbling In older to save the accommodation and its utility as a hop the Defendant was forced to make substitute walls so that the roof may remain and the accommodation ma; not become roofless- by the crumbling of the walls.. There is no finding that the Defendant intended to cause damage, muchless substantial damage to the accommodation. His intention was to save the accommodation so that he can continue to utilize it for the purpose for which it was let out to him. -We have to keep in mind that the Defendant-tenant had served.notice on the tindlady to effect repairs,'but the landlady did not make aay move. In the ehsromstances, the finding that the tenant caused substantial damage to the original building is without any evidence and is untenable. -We have to keep in mind that the Defendant-tenant had served.notice on the tindlady to effect repairs,'but the landlady did not make aay move. In the ehsromstances, the finding that the tenant caused substantial damage to the original building is without any evidence and is untenable. I find no violation (sic) that the tenant did not obtain any such (b) the tenant makes any such construction or structural alteration as is likely, 8. Clause (c) is attarcted, when, (a) This tenant makes constructions or submission with out the permission in writing of landlord. The finding is that the tenant did not obtain any such permission. (i) to diminish its value or utility or (ii) to disfigure it. 9. The learned District Judge, has found that the, alterations effected by the defiant did not change the figure of the building. The building retained its original shape and form. Hence it cannot be said that he disfigured it,' 10. The middle part of Clause (c) says 'made any such construction structural' alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value utility or to disfigure it. The making of construction or structural alteration does not by itself attract liability to ejectment. The construction or structural alteration must be such as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. 11. In view of the finding that the mud walls started crumbling and falling down because of excessive rain, the value or utility of the building Would have been reduced to nil as an accommodation. No accommodation would have remained after the walls had fallen down, With no walls to sustain the roof it would obviously have fallen down, rendering the area an open piece of land rather than a building. In order to save the catastrophe, the Defendant built fresh walls to susfatn the roof and keep the structure in the form of an usable accommodation. The Defendant s action may be making construction or even structural alteration in the building but the question is was it likely to diminish its value or utility. 12. The important word is 'likely'. The construction should have the affect of diminishing the value or utility. Here the value or the utility was likely to become nil by the falling down of the walls and the roofs with. it. 12. The important word is 'likely'. The construction should have the affect of diminishing the value or utility. Here the value or the utility was likely to become nil by the falling down of the walls and the roofs with. it. If the Defendant made the construction to retain the accommodation in an usable form, he maintained its value of utility. The construction could not is taw in mid M likely to diminish them. On the otter Band, it could well be Mid that they enhanced it value or utility because otherwise the value or utility would have become nil. 13. Learned Counsel for the parties invited my attention to certain decided cases. Each one of them relates to Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Rent Control Act of 1947. Clause (c) aforesaid provides: (c). That the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction as in the opinion of the Court has materially affected the accommodation or is likely to substantially diminish its value. 14. In Babu Manmohan Das Shah and Others Vs. Bishun Das, AIR 1967 SC 643 , the Supreme Court held that the word ' or' in Clause (c) cannot be read as meaning 'and.' Therefore, if the constructions are such as in the opinion of the Court have materially affected the accommodation, liability to eviction accrues even though the construction may not likely to substantially diminish its value. The word ' or' was held to be disjunctive. For applying the first part, namely, that the construction as In the opinion of the Court materially affected the accommodation the question whether any harm or damage was done to the building is irrelevant. The relevant consideration was only that the accommodation has been materially affected. ' Materially affected' was interpreted to mean that they have the effect of substantially changing the front or the structure of the premises. This case is of no help because the language of Clause (c) of the Rent Control Act of 1972 is entirely different. Now,' the construction or structural alteration can entail liability to eviction only if they are such as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it; not simply because the construction has been made or structural alteration has bean made in the building. Now,' the construction or structural alteration can entail liability to eviction only if they are such as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it; not simply because the construction has been made or structural alteration has bean made in the building. Making structural alteration in building may in certain circumstances materially affect it. But that is not although. The construction or the alteration should be such as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. The other eases cited, namely, Sirdar Bahadur Hiathur v. Kali Prasad Gupta 1961 AWR 162 , Jai Dhawan v. Podam Sen 1964 AWR 612 and Dr. Jai Gopal Gupta v. Bodh Mal 1969 AWR 237 , were all in relation to Clause (c) of the 1947 Act. They are not helpful. 15. As seen above, the construction or structural alteration in the present case was not such as is likely tp diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. The tenant-application making the constructions did not contravene Clause (b) or (c) of Section 20(2). He was not liable to eviction. 16. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The decree passed by the two courts below is modified. The suit for ejectment is dismissed, white the decree for recovery of arrears of rent is maintained. The applicant will be entitled to costs throughout.