JUDGMENT : S D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings in suit no. 758 of 1984 filed in the court of the Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages. The suit was filed by Chandra Bhan Singh respondent no. 1 against the petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant of premises no., 109/388, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur. The rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per mensum. The accommodation consists of two rooms. It was let out for the purpose of residential-cum business. 2. The suit was filed on the basis of the ground mentioned in section 20, sub-section (2) sub-clause (c) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The ground being that the tenant without the permission of the landlord in writing made material alterations in the property in dispute. This suit was contested by the petitioner. The Judge Small Causes Court has found that the petitioner did make material alterations which have diminished the value of the building as well as diminished its utility and, consequently, the decree for ejectment was passed by the court. This judgment was delivered on 23-9-1985. , 3. Aggrieved by the said decision, a revision was filed under section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act. The revision was also dismissed by the revisional court by an order dated 23rd May, 1987. 4. The petitioner has now challenged the orders, dated 23rd September, 1985 and 23rd May 1987 by means of the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has not made any construction or structural alterations in the building let out to him and as such, the suit for ejectment could not have been decreed on the ground of section 20 sub-clause (2) (c) of the Act. The view to the contrary taken by both the courts below, is manifestly erroenous. 6. It is not disputed that two rooms together with a triangular portion including a chabutra in front thereof was let out to the petitioner. This portion was let out to the petitioner for running a sweetmeat shop. The view to the contrary taken by both the courts below, is manifestly erroenous. 6. It is not disputed that two rooms together with a triangular portion including a chabutra in front thereof was let out to the petitioner. This portion was let out to the petitioner for running a sweetmeat shop. The allegation made in the plaint was that the petitioner has constructed a latrine inside the front room of his tenanted portion by digging and damaging the floor of the room and the Chabutra. He has raised a partition wall and has also made other constructions by fixing water pipe, sewer fittings etc. Both the courts below have found that the petitioner has constructed a latrine in the front room which was let out to him. The front room has been converted partially into a latrine and the other corner part is being used as sweetmeat shop. IT has also been found that a water tank has been fixed in the said latrine. Conversion of a room into a latrine is clearly a construction which will diminish its value and utility. If a room which can be used as a shop or for residential purposes is converted into a latrine, obviously, such construction would not only amount to a structural alteration but it shall also diminish its value and utility. In the circumstances, I do not find any legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection has urged that in fact it is an improvement which increases the value of the building and it does not diminish its value. I do not agree. If a living room or a shop is converted into a latrine, obviously, it would diminish its value as also lessen its utility. In effect, it will further disfigure the room in question. 7. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied on the decision in the case of Dr. Jai Gopal Gupta v. Bodh Mal, 1969 AWR 237. In this case the tenant had added a kitchen and bathroom in the court yard. He has not touched the house which was let out to him. This court in those circumstances, held that it would not amount to material alteration. 8. In the instant case, a latrine has been constructed in the accommodation let out to the petitioner. In this case the tenant had added a kitchen and bathroom in the court yard. He has not touched the house which was let out to him. This court in those circumstances, held that it would not amount to material alteration. 8. In the instant case, a latrine has been constructed in the accommodation let out to the petitioner. As observed above, if the room let out for residential or commercial purposes is converted into a latrine, in my opinion, it would definitely amount to a material alteration to the building. The principle laid down in Dr. Jai Gopal Gupta (supra), does not, in my opinion, apply to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel further urged that a mere construction of a partition wall will not amount to material alteration. This may be so if the partition wall is the only construction made by a person. But in the instant case, it is not a partition wall in isolation which has been constructed, but a room has been converted into a latrine and that too the front room of the property let out. IN , these circumstances, this submission of the learned counsel also, in my opinion, does not have any substance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out to me that under section 28-B of the Act, he has a right to get water connection and sanitary fittings installed without the permission of the landlord. There is no dispute to this position. The intention in enacting section 28-B of the Act is only to the effect that no permission of the landlord shall be required in case, the tenant wants to get the water connection, electric connection or sanitary fittings installed in a building. The purpose is that in case a particular sanitary fitting has gone out of use, he can get a new sanitary fitting fitted in its place. The object of section 28-B of the Act is not that a tenant can be permitted to convert a room into a latrine. In the circumstances, in view of section 28-B the petitioner cannot get a licence for converting a room into a latrine. 9. In the result, I do not find any force in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 23-7-87, is, hereby vacated. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.