JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. 1. The tenant, who is petitioner here, is challenging the decision of the Small Cause Court and of the revisional court confirming the earlier decision by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. A suit for ejectment was filed by opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 8 on the ground that the petitioner-tenant had made certain alterations in the rear portion of the kotha let out to him and had also raised some other construction on the plaintiff's adjoining land without his written permission which has caused substantial damage to the property and has also disfigured the same reducing its value. The defendant admitted having reconstructed the rear portion of the Kotha as the same was badly leaking and its condition had become very ruinous needing reconstruction. As regards the constructions made on the adjoining land, the dispute is subject to another suit which is pending between the parties in Second Appeal before this Court. One of the pleas by the defendant was that the portion where those constructions had been raised also forms part of his tenancy. Apart from the question of material alteration, the plaintiffs also based their suit on default in payment of rent. Both the courts have recorded a finding that rent was in arrears against the petitioner when the suit was filed. However, the revisional court has held that on the first date of hearing i. e on 4-1-1979, the tenant got a tender for depositing the arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit passed by the Court and actually deposited the amount in the treasury on the very next date and thus successfully complied with Section 20 (4) of the Act. The opposite parties have, very fairly, not raised this issue any more before me. 3. The only point that has been ardently pressed before me is that even if the defendant had made any structural alterations in the building, it was still necessary to record a further finding that as a result of this there had been either diminution in the value or utility of the building or disfigurement of the demised premises. 3. The only point that has been ardently pressed before me is that even if the defendant had made any structural alterations in the building, it was still necessary to record a further finding that as a result of this there had been either diminution in the value or utility of the building or disfigurement of the demised premises. It will, however, be only proper here to have the relevant portion of section 20 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, which is extracted below :- "(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely :- (a........................... (b) ........................... (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." 4. Before this clause can be applied, the plaintiff in order to succeed must establish the following :- (i) That the tenant has made or permitted to be made construction or structural alteration in the building ; (ii) that this was done without the permission in writing of the landlord ; and (iii) that the said construction or structural alteration is likely either : (a) to diminish its value ; or (b) to diminish its utility ; or (c) to disfigure it. The above analysis of the section will show that any structural alteration or construction in the building in the absence of written consent of the landlord per se is not enough for decreeing the landlord's suit for eviction for he must further establish that the construction complained of had resulted in either diminishing the value or utility of the building or in disfiguring the same. If none of these is not proved the suit for eviction on this ground must fail. I am fortified in what I have said above by the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Mool Narain Mehrotra v. Smt. Gulab Devi, 1988 AWC 295 5. If none of these is not proved the suit for eviction on this ground must fail. I am fortified in what I have said above by the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Mool Narain Mehrotra v. Smt. Gulab Devi, 1988 AWC 295 5. In the present case, the revisional court having found that the rear portion of the Kotha had been reconstructed and new roof over it has been laid has drawn a conclusion that this had resulted in diminishing the value of the property or at least in disfiguring the same. This approach of the revisional Court is not consistent with provision of Section 20 (2) (c) of the Act. 6. In this section, there are two crucial words which need immediately to be taken notice of. These are 'any such' appearing just before the expression 'construction or structural alteration' and the word 'likely' which immediately follows that expression. It is not every kind of construction or structural alteration which will give rise to a cause of action for evicting a tenant. The offending construction or structural alteration must be of the type as was likely to result either in diminishing the value or utility of the building or in causing disfigurement thereof. In the absence of this, the raising of construction or making structural alteration per se will not give cause of action for eviction of tenant. In view of the above, it becomes necessary to consider the exact meaning and import of the word 'likely' used in this sub-section. In Webster Dictionary (Latest edition), the word 'Likely' has been defined to mean probable, quite possible, plausible or appearing to be capable. According to Words and Phrases, the word means "of such nature or so circumstanced as to render some thing probable but is not equivalent to saying reasonably certain". When used as an adverb, it means "in all probability or probably or worthy of belief or reasonably expected". According to the said book, there is but a shade of difference between 'reasonably expected' and 'reasonably certain'. It is more akin to probability but more than a mere possibility and is used in the sense of some thing more than possible but less than probable. According to the said book, there is but a shade of difference between 'reasonably expected' and 'reasonably certain'. It is more akin to probability but more than a mere possibility and is used in the sense of some thing more than possible but less than probable. Therefore, what can be said to be likely cannot be very much away from actually It is, therefore, necessary that the Court should on the basis of evidence before it find that the construction or structural alteration complained of can be reasonably expected to result in any thing like diminishing the value of the building or its utility or cause its disfigurement. 7. In this connection, it is also important to see as to what is meant by the word 'disfigure' as used in the said sub-section. At the outset I may say that the sub-section is most inartistically drafted and the legislature should have used a more specific or appropriate expression to convey what it intended to provide. However, as it is, we have to examine as to what the dictionary meaning of the word is. According to Webster, latest edition "to disfigure means to spoil the appearance of". In words and Phrases it is defined as 'to deface'. However, in Corpus Juris Secondum, Volume 27, it is stated that the word has no technical meaning but in its plain and ordinary sense it has been defined as meaning to mar the figure ; to render less perfect or beautiful in appearance ; to deface or deform to do some external injury which may detract from the personal appearance. The word is also used in the sense of blot, blemish, sincer multilation, that which impairs or injures the beauty, symmetry, appearance of a person or thing ; that which renders unsightly, mis-shapen or imperfect or deform in any manner ; a change of external form to, or for the worse. 8. From the various meaning assigned to the word 'disfigure' it will be apparent that disfigurement in the most commonly used sense means a change in the outer shape and figure in such a manner that its appearance becomes worse than before. The appearance, therefore, must result in some thing which is less beautiful or less pleasing than it was earlier. From the various meaning assigned to the word 'disfigure' it will be apparent that disfigurement in the most commonly used sense means a change in the outer shape and figure in such a manner that its appearance becomes worse than before. The appearance, therefore, must result in some thing which is less beautiful or less pleasing than it was earlier. Before the Court can say that a particular construction or structural alteration has become actionable for the eviction of the tenant, the court must conclude that as a result of the objectionable construction or alteration, there has been a consequent disfigurement of the building in any of the above senses. Here again, a mere raising of construction or structural alteration in the building will not by itself is sufficient to decree eviction of the tenant but the court must further find that the offending construction or change is for the worse causing disfigurement of the building. Such a conclusion must be capable of being drawn from the evidence on the record. 9. In the case in hand, the revisional court has only found and that too in the admission of the petitioner-tenant that certain structural alterations have been carried out by him in the back portion of the Kotha in his tenancy. There is no evidence as to what change has been brought about on that account. There is only a vague statement by the plaintiff that it has resulted in diminishing the value of the building and in disfigurement. Thus merely on that basis, it is not possible for the court to record a finding that the tenant had become liable to ejectment under Section 20 2) (c). Obviously this evidence on the record was totally insufficient to sustain a finding of disfigurement or diminution in the value of the building. The mere fact that rear portion of a Kotha had been reconstructed and converted from Kachcha to pucca after laying a pucca roof over it by itself cannot result in diminishing the value or utility of the building unless there was some more evidence to indicate how this diminution has resulted. There is nothing in the evidence either that the construction that has been raised is in any way different from what it was earlier and that the look of the building has been impaired in any way. There is nothing in the evidence either that the construction that has been raised is in any way different from what it was earlier and that the look of the building has been impaired in any way. If the newly constructed Kotha was exactly of the same size and shape, the only difference being regarding the material used in constructing the walls and the roof, this per se will not result in disfigurement. The new construction must result in some kind of disfigurement in the sense pointed out earlier- Having given my careful consideration to the facts of the present case and the findings recorded by the revisional court, I am of the firm view that there was no material before the court which could throw light on the question of disfigurement or diminution in the utility or value of the building. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 25th June, 1985 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Mathura is hereby quashed with a direction that the matter will now again go before the said court who will restore the revision to its original number in its record and thereafter record its conclusion again under Section 20 (2) (c) afresh in the light of the observations made above. However, since this small cause suit has been pending for over a decade it would be only fair if the same is disposed of at an early date. The V Additional District Judge, Mathura is directed to dispose of the revision as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before it. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs Let a certified copy of the order be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of requisite charges within 7 days. Petition allowed.