JUDGMENT N. D. Ojha,J. - Respondents 3 to 8 are the landlords of an accommodation occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. A suit was instituted by respondents 3 to 8 against the petitioner for his ejectment inter alia on the grounds that he was defaulter in payment of rent, that he had without permission of the landlord constructed two rooms over the roof of the accommodation which had not only diminished its value but also its utility and had the affect of disfiguring it and that the tenancy of the petitioner had been duly terminated by serving a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that he was not a defaulter in payment of Rent and at all events he having made the necessary deposit as contemplated by Section 20(4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) no decree could be passed for his ejectment on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent. In regard to the construction of the two rooms his case was that these rooms had been constructed with the permission of the landlord respondents and that at all events they did not have the effect of either diminishing the value of the accommodation or its utility or disfiguring it as contemplated by section 20(2)(c) of the Act. It was also pleaded by him that no notice of termination of tenancy had been served on him. 2. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties the Judge, Small Causes, respondent No. 2, held that the tenancy of the petitioner had been duly terminated by serving on him a valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the two rooms which the petitioner had admittedly constructed over the roof of the accommodation in question had not been constructed with the permission of the landlord-respondents and that those constructions had diminished the value of the roof and the roof could not be utilised as a roof because of these constructions. On these findings the suit was decreed. On these findings the suit was decreed. In regard to the plea raised by the landlord-respondents that the petitioner was defaulter in payment of rent the Judge, Small Causes, took the view that since the necessary deposit as asserted by the petitioner has been made by him no decree for his ejectment could be passed on that ground. The decree of the Judge, Small Causes, was challenged by the petitioner in a revision which has been dismissed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, respondent No. 1. In regard to the question as to whether a valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served on the petitioner and as to whether the two rooms had been constructed by the petitioner with the permission of the landlord-respondents it has been held by respondent No. 1 that the findings in this behalf of the Judge, Small Causes, were correct and did not suffer from any such defect which could justify interference in a civil revision. The finding in the Judge, Small Causes, on the question as to whether the construction of the two rooms amounted to structural alteration in the building and was likely to diminish its value and utility has also been upheld by respondent No. 1. He has recorded a further finding that the construction of the two rooms on the upper floor had also the effect of disfiguring the accommodation in question. It is these two orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 3. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the two rooms in question were constructed by the petitioner with the permission of the landlord-respondents and the finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2 to the contrary was erroneous. Suffice it to say so far as this submission is concerned that the question as to whether any permission had been granted by the landlord-respondents for construction of the two rooms aforesaid is essentially a question of fact and the finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2 on such a question, as a necessary corrollary, is a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence and cannot be challenged in a writ petition. Nothing has been brought to my notice which may justify interference with this finding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Nothing has been brought to my notice which may justify interference with this finding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. In regard to the service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act it has been urged by counsel for the petitioner that the said notice has been found to have been sufficiently served on the petitioner on the ground that it was affixed on the accommodation in question and that such a service was not sufficient to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner so far as this submission is concerned it may be pointed out that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, respondent No. 1, has held that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sought to be served on the petitioner by registered post but it was received back and that it indicated that the petitioner had always avoided service of the said notice. Respondent No. 1 has further held that in this back ground the landlord-respondents were entitled to serve the said notice by affixation. Be has pointed out that the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes, that notice had been served by affixation as based on the evidence of one of the plaintiffs whose deposition was rightly believed by the Judge, Small Causes. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act inter alia provides that every notice under this section must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. Affixation of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to a conspicuous part of the property is, therefore, a valid mode of service of such notice. On the finding that the petitioner avoided service of the notice sent to him by registered post recourse to mode of service by its affixation to a conspicuous part of the property could obviously be taken by the landlord-respondents. On the finding that the petitioner avoided service of the notice sent to him by registered post recourse to mode of service by its affixation to a conspicuous part of the property could obviously be taken by the landlord-respondents. The finding on the question of service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as recorded by respondents 1 and 2 also does not suffer from any such error which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Lastly it was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the construction of the two rooms did not afford any cause of action to the landlord respondents for filing a suit for the petitioner's ejectment inasmuch as the construction of the two rooms over the roof of the accommodation in question was not 'likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it' and that the finding to the contrary recorded by respondents 1 and 2 was patently erroneous. I find it difficult to agree with this submission either. The word 'or' used after the words 'diminish its value' and the word 'utility' clearly indicates that the requirements of Section 202).c) of the Act will be fulfilled even if the case is brought under any of the three categories mentioned therein, namely, (1) diminishing the value of the accommodation, (2) diminishing its utility, and (3) disfiguring it. After construction of the rooms over the roof of the accommodation in question the roof obviously cannot now be utilised as a roof and to that extent there seems to be no doubt that the utility of the accommodation in question has been diminished. The view taken by the Additional District and Sessions Judge that the construction of two rooms had the effect of disfiguring the accommodation in question is again not such which can be said to suffer from any manifest error of law. When an accommodation is constructed by the landlord in a particular pattern and haphazard constructions are added by the tenant to it which have the effect of diminishing its utility in a particular manner it can justifiably be said that the construction in question has the effect of disfiguring the accommodation in question. When an accommodation is constructed by the landlord in a particular pattern and haphazard constructions are added by the tenant to it which have the effect of diminishing its utility in a particular manner it can justifiably be said that the construction in question has the effect of disfiguring the accommodation in question. Even if two views are possible on this point it cannot be said that the view taken by respondent No. 1 on the facts of the instant case suffers from any manifest error of law. 6. Counsel for the petitioner made a prayer there three months time may he granted to the petitioner for vacating the accommodation in question. On being asked as to whether he was prepared to give an undertaking that on the expiry of three months, vacant possession will be delivered by the petitioner to the landlords counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to do so in the absence of any positive instruction from the petitioner. Even so, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be granted at least a month's time to vacate the accommodation in question even in the absence of an undertaking. 7. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The petitioner, however, is granted one month's time from today's date to vacate the accommodation in question.