JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This revision is under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-2-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.1) Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 17 of 1999 whereby the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 826/- per month till the delivery of vacant possession is handed over to the plaintiff, has been decreed. 2. This is defendant’s revision who was tenant of Premises No. 25/2 Mall Road, Kanpur on a monthly rent of Rs. 826/-; on which the plaintiff opposite party is landlady. The landlady brought SCC Suit No. 17 of 1999 for ejectment of the defendant tenant on the allegations that the defendant took shop in Premises No. 25/2 The Mall Road, Kanpur. The shop consists of two compartments. The defendant illegally and without written consent of the landlady got demolished the intervening wall of the two shops and constructed a “Duchhatti” in the shop and also lowered down the floor of the shop by 2 feet and extended the shop towards east by three feet and constructed a Pakka Chabutra and fixed a Shutter, where by the shop has been disfigured and it gives an ugly look. The constructions and structure alterations made by the defendant in the building has diminished its value, utility and disfigured it. Besides the tenanted shop of the defendant there is a third shop of the landlady in the tenancy of Smt. Sangita Makhija. The defendant also got demolished the intervening wall of his shop and the shop of tenant Sangita Makhija, resultantly all the three shops have been changed and converted into one shop. 3. The defendant in the written statement as well as in evidence has not disputed the construction/alteration made by him. The defence is that all these constructions/alteration were made by him with the expressed permission and consent of the landlady. After carrying out the aforesaid construction when the defendant failed to increase rent as desired by the landlady, the suit giving rise to the present revision was filed by her as a pressure tactics. However it was also submitted that these additions/alterations are not such as is likely to diminish the value of the building or its utility or disfigured it. 4. However it was also submitted that these additions/alterations are not such as is likely to diminish the value of the building or its utility or disfigured it. 4. The Trial Court decreed the suit and found that the constructions and structure alterations made in the building by the defendant are of such nature as It is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court the present revision has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of the aforesaid findings. This was the only issue, which was pressed and canvassed before this Court In the present revision. The learned Counsel for the applicant pressed the revision by assailing the findings recorded by the trial Court on issue No. 1, relating to the material alteration in the disputed property and its disfigurement etc. 5. It is no longer in dispute that the defendant has carried out following additions, modification or structural changes in the premises in question, they are : (i) defendant removed the intervening wall of his tenanted shop which consists of two compartment, (ii) lowered down the floor of the shop by two feet; (iii) constructed a “Duchhatti” in the disputed shop. There is dispute in between the parties about existence of the earlier duchhatti. The case of the landlady is that the defendant constructed a Duchhatti for the first time. On the other hand according to the defendant tenant he has replaced the old wooden Duchhatti with a new pakki Duchhatti, (iv) the tenant has placed girders etc. in place of wooden Beam, (v) extended the shop towards east by three feet by constructing a Pakka chabutra and placing a Shutter and (vi) defendant has removed common wall in between his tenanted shop and of third shop in the tenancy of Sangita Makhija. Thereby the tenant has converted three shops into one. 6. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Verma, Advocate, strenuously contended that all these additions/alterations were made with the express and written permission of landlady. It was submitted that Sangita Makhija is the sister of defendant tenant. The walls were removed in accordance with the permission granted by the landlady and these alterations/constructions have not in any way disfigured the building nor they have diminished its value or utility. It was submitted that Sangita Makhija is the sister of defendant tenant. The walls were removed in accordance with the permission granted by the landlady and these alterations/constructions have not in any way disfigured the building nor they have diminished its value or utility. By placing girders and repairing the shop the value of the building has been enhanced and, as such, the Court below, committed illegality in decreeing the suit for ejectment of the defendant under Section 20 (2) (c) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 7. In contra, Sri M.K. Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff/oppsoite party submitted that the present revision is frivolous one and has been filed just to harass the weak and old, aged and widowed lady who has got no one to look after her at Kanpur. She is presently aged about 84 years and her two sons are residing outside Kanpur in connection with their engagement with their services. The landlady by paper No. 40 permitted the defendant/tenant for dismantling of wall inside the shop but the defendant/tenant in the garb of aforesaid permission dated 14th August, 1993 carried on extensive structural alterations in the shop in dispute and extended the shop towards eastern side by 3 feet and raised a Chabutra and fixed shutter thereby disfigured the building and diminished its value and utility. The disfigurement of building, diminishing of its value and utility has to be looked from the point of view of the landlady. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that paper No. 41-C is a forged and fictitious document, at any rate it does not amount grant of permission to the defendant/tenant to carry out the alterations, what he did. The defendant/tenant carried out the structural alterations against the wishes of the landlady and to pressurize her he filed a criminal case against the landlady who is presently aged about 84 years. The defendant/tenant by removing intervening wall of two separate tenements (one which was in his tenancy and other which is in the tenancy of Sangeeta Makhija) has rendered himself liable for eviction under Section 20 (2) (c) of the Act. 8. The Landlady before filing the suit giving rise to the present revision, had filed Original Suit No. 2322 of 1993, Mukti Sen v. Rajesh Makhija and others, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the construction. The said suit is still pending consideration. 8. The Landlady before filing the suit giving rise to the present revision, had filed Original Suit No. 2322 of 1993, Mukti Sen v. Rajesh Makhija and others, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the construction. The said suit is still pending consideration. The landlady could not get temporary injunction order therein. The case of the landlady is that she never agreed for removal of the wall between three shops. Her specific case is that her husband after getting map sanctioned got constructed three shops. Two of them were let out to the defendant and the third one to Sangita Makhija, who happens to be sister of the defendant. 9. Before proceeding further it is appropriate to reproduce Section 20 (2) (c) of the Act which reads as follows : "20. (2)A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of the tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely : (a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand : Provided that in relation to a tenant who is a member of the armed forces of the Union and in whose favour the prescribed authority under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (Act IV of 1925) has issued a certificate that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of Section 3 of that Act or where he has died by enemy action while so serving, then in relation to his heirs, the words “four months” in this clause shall be deemed to have been substituted by the words “one year”. (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; (d) .............................................. (e) that the tenant has sub let, in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building: (f) .............................................. (g) .............................................." 10. (e) that the tenant has sub let, in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building: (f) .............................................. (g) .............................................." 10. It is clear from the above that a tenant cannot make any such construction or structural alterations in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it without the permission in writing of the landlord. The extent of construction or material alterations made by the defendant/tenant is not presently in dispute in the revision. The defence is that such constructions or structural alterations were made with permission in writing of the landlady. On this point the trial Court has framed issue No. 1. It after discussing the pleadings and evidence of the parties has come to the conclusion that the construction and structural alterations were not made with permission in writing of the landlady. This finding has been seriously challenged by the learned Counsel for the applicant who referred paper No. 40-C and 41-C as well as the statement of the landlady recorded on oath as PW1. Paper No. 40-C is in the writing of the landlady. She has accepted the said document and has come out with the case that she permitted the defendant/tenant for dismantling of wall inside the shop. The contents of the said document are reproduced below : “To Shree Rajesh Makhija Sri Chand Stores 25/1 Mall Road Kanpur 208601 (U.P.) Re Dismantling of wall inside shop Dear Rajesh, This is to inform you that as per our discussion with Mr Kamal Roy (Architect) and your request permission is granted to dismantle the inner wall between two the shop Sd/-” 11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid permission would show that the landlady permitted dismantling of the wall inside the disputed shop consisting of two compartments. The landlady by granting the permission aforesaid permitted the removal of the common wall in between the two compartments of the tenanted shop of the defendant. This is all the plaintiff/landlady permitted. But the defendant/tenant has taken for granted that he can make any construction or structural alteration on his sweet will. The landlady by granting the permission aforesaid permitted the removal of the common wall in between the two compartments of the tenanted shop of the defendant. This is all the plaintiff/landlady permitted. But the defendant/tenant has taken for granted that he can make any construction or structural alteration on his sweet will. Obviously the defendant tenant was not at all justified to make any changes in the building except the one permitted by the landlady through paper No. 40-C. In para 4 of statement given on oath the defendant has stated that by means of the letter dated 14th August, 1993, the landlady permitted the removal of the wall in between the two separate and different tenanted accommodation. The case as pleaded by the defendant/tenant does not borne out from the aforesaid document. On a plain and simple reading of the document the case as pleaded by the plaintiff is fully established. She granted the permission in writing to remove the inside wall of the shop of the defendant/tenant. 12. Strong reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant on paper No. 41-C that the landlady had granted permission in writing to raise constructions and structural alterations in question. The said document is dated 24th August, 1993 and is admittedly in the handwriting of the defendant/applicant. The said document is reproduced below : “To Mrs. Sen Joginder Estate Kanpur, Respected Auntie As per our verbal discussions, I would like to further state the following points regarding renovation, addition and alteration of my shop. (1) Dismantling of the partition wall and strengthening the roof by girders and lawns. (2) Dismantling the existing flooring and bringing down the floor up to one and half feet. (3) Dismantling the existing roof (Duchhatti) and to construct New Mezzanine floor at appropriate height; (4) I also undertake not to damage any portion of the property and shall keep it properly maintained. (5) I will also get repaired your full chajja of the property. All these shall be executed entirely at my own cost. Kindly approve the same and oblige Yours sincerely Sd/- For Joginder Estate (Rajesh Makhija)” 13. (5) I will also get repaired your full chajja of the property. All these shall be executed entirely at my own cost. Kindly approve the same and oblige Yours sincerely Sd/- For Joginder Estate (Rajesh Makhija)” 13. The defendant/tenant has come out with a case that after obtaining permission dated 14th August, 1993, he along with his sister Sangeeta Makhija went to see the landlady, who agreed for further construction and alterations by means of the document dated 24th August, 1993, reproduced above. The genuineness of the said document 41-C has been disputed by the landlady. According to her the said document is forged and fictitious, inasmuch as her signatures have been forged on the said document. The Trial Court has considered the respective pleas of the parties. It is noted that although said document contains the seal of “for Joginder Estate” but there is cutting over the disputed signatures of the landlady. The learned Counsel for the tenant in this connection referred to the cross examination part of the statement of the landlady, wherein she has stated that she does not remember as to whether Rajesh had given in writing paper No. 41-C, which contains her signature and also the seal of the “Joginder Estate”. According to the learned Counsel this amounts admission of the landlady. It is difficult to agree with the aforesaid submission. It is well settled that while considering the statement of a witnesses it should be read as a whole. It is not safe to pick up a single sentence and read it out of context. In earlier part of her cross-examination she has categorically stated that she gave permission for dismantling of the wall. She has further stated that on the suggestion Kamal Rai who Is an Architect, she permitted for placing of beam but she did not permit lowering of the floor of the shop. She has very categorically stated that she gave only one letter which is paper No. 40-C, At the time of her statement she was about 82 years old. The particular part of the statement of the landlady on which strong reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the tenant/applicant only this much shows that she is unable to remember as to whether paper No. 41-C was given to her by Rajesh or not. The particular part of the statement of the landlady on which strong reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the tenant/applicant only this much shows that she is unable to remember as to whether paper No. 41-C was given to her by Rajesh or not. It was not put to her as to whether the document in question bears her signature or not. No suggestion was given to her that she subsequently permitted to carry out such construction or alterations, which were not even covered by the document 40-C, on the contrary her statement on oath is otherwise and specific. 14. Even otherwise also, paper No. 41-C is not of much help to the tenant as it does not amount granting of permission for the offended constructions/structural alterations. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid document paper No. 41-C does not contain any express words such as “permission granted.” Even assuming for the sake of argument that the signatures of the landlady is genuine at the most It would amount receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 24th August, 1993. The requirement of law under Section 20 (2) (c) is that there should be express permission in writing of the landlord. At the most the defendant by means of aforesaid document has sought permission from the landlady. This is the maximum which can be inferred from the aforesaid document. It is not possible to draw an inference of grant of permission as contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant. 15. It appears that the tenant after obtaining express permission by the letter dated 14th August, 1999 became wiser and taking undue advantage of the old age of landlady who is residing all alone started massive material alterations in the building in question. The landlady immediately tried to get the construction work stopped. She promptly instituted suit No. 2322 of 1993 for permanent injunction, (a copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure CA-2), permanently restraining the present applicant and his sister Smt. Sangeeta Makhija from dismantling the common wall in between the two separate tenanted shops and merging the three shops (two in possession of the tenant and one in possession of Sangeeta Makhija) into one shop and for demolition of Duchhatti and filling the floor of the shop by two feet. The temporary injunction order could not be obtained. 16. The temporary injunction order could not be obtained. 16. There is yet another aspect of the case. Even if paper No. 41-C is taken on its face value, it is crystal clear that there is no permission by the landlady to dismantle the wall in between the two tenants, namely, applicant/tenant and his sister Smt Sangeeta Makhija. It is admitted case of the defendant/tenant that the tenancy of Smt. Sangeeta Makhija is independent and separate and is in respect of a different tenement. The defendant/tenant carried on construction and material alteration so as to mingle the separate tenanted accommodations into one. There is no such permission by the landlady even if paper No. 41-C is read to its fullest extent. In view of the above discussion, the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence of the parties and paper No. 40-C and 41-C, and its conclusion that there was no permission in writing by the landlady permitting the defendant/applicant to make such construction or structural alterations as has been done by him. It does not call for any interference by this Court, as the finding of the trial Court is legally sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the constructions and structural alterations were made with the permission in writing of the landlady has no force and is hereby rejected. The trial Court has carefully considered the aforesaid plea and has rightly reached the conclusion that there is nothing to show that the plaintiff had granted permission for the constructions carried on by the defendant/applicant. 17. Then it was submitted that the constructions made by the applicant are not material alterations and they are not of such nature as is likely to diminish the value of the building or its utility or to disfigure it. Before coming to the rulings relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant it is apt to state here that the defendant/tenant has extended accommodation by three feet towards east and got constructed a Chabutra and fixed a shutter there on. Specific case of the landlady is that all the three shops and residential accommodation in which she is residing were constructed simultaneously after getting the map sanctioned by her husband. Specific case of the landlady is that all the three shops and residential accommodation in which she is residing were constructed simultaneously after getting the map sanctioned by her husband. It has also come on record that there is symmetry in the entire building, which consist of residential portion as well as three shops. The landlady in her pleadings as well as in her statement has specifically stated that by making extension of three feet towards east and raising Chabutra the building has been disfigured and it looks ugly. (JISASE MAKAN KI AKRATI HI BADAL GAYEE HAI AUR DEKHANE MAI BURA LAGANE LAGA.....) There is no cross-examination by the defendant/applicant with regard to the aforesaid statement of the landlady, nor is there any evidence to the contrary. The defendant/tenant in his statement on oath has not stated even a single word otherwise. The entire statement of the defendant/tenant is directed towards the grant of permission by the landlady and enhancement of the rent as a result of such permission. Therefore, the finding of the Court below that the constructions made by the tenant/applicant in the building has disfigured it, is perfectly sound and based on evidence and no fault can be found out therein. 18. Disfigurement of tenanted building by a tenant without written permission of landlord is itself a ground available to a landlord to seek the evidence of tenant. The offended constructions has “disfigured the building could not be challenged in revision being a question of fact, itself is sufficient to decree the suit for ejectment under Section 20 (2) (c) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The word “disfigure” has not been defined in the Act. According to Webster’s Dictionary “disfigure” mean:To make less complete, perfect or beautiful or deface, deform or disguise by changing the figure or appearance” Deform to spoil the form of shape of to distort, mar the excellence or perfection; Deface To destroy or mar the face or external appearance, injure, spoil or mar by effecting important features or portions. Thus the word “disfigure” as a common man understands, means that it has spoiled the external appearance of the building. 19. Much emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the tenant by placing girders and removing the two walls and converting the three shops into a big shop has enhanced its value and utility. Thus the word “disfigure” as a common man understands, means that it has spoiled the external appearance of the building. 19. Much emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the tenant by placing girders and removing the two walls and converting the three shops into a big shop has enhanced its value and utility. Waryam Singh v. Baldeo Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 59 , was strongly relied upon, in support of the above contention. In para 6 of the report the constructions made by the tenant in that case are noted, one shop with a varandah was let out, the tenant covered the varandah by construction of walls on two sides and rolling shutter in the front was affixed. The original door was removed. The Apex Court posed the question whether including the varandah would amount to impairing materially the value or utility of the shop and answered it in negative. The aforesaid ruling is distinguishable on facts as well as on law. The nature of the constructions/material alterations raised by the tenant in the case in hand are factually and materially different and have no similarity with the fact that varandah has been enclosed. There the Apex Court was considering whether enclosure of varandah amounts to “impairing materially the value or utility of the shop”. The question of disfigurement of shop was not involved therein. To this extent, Section 20 (2) (c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not pari meteria with Section 13 (2) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the statute which was under consideration before the Apex Court in the case (supra). It distinguished the case of Bipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, (1993) 2 SCC 614 , on the ground that it was a case of removal of certain fixtures. The other case, Hari Rao v. N. Govinda Chari, AIR 2005 SC 3389 , has hardly any application to the facts of the present case. In that case the question involved was whether fixing of signboards, putting up racks on walls by drilling holes amount act of waste as defined under Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act (18 of 1960). In that case the question involved was whether fixing of signboards, putting up racks on walls by drilling holes amount act of waste as defined under Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act (18 of 1960). It was held that in the absence of any material the Court could not come to the conclusion that the act of the tenant therein amounted to commission of such acts of waste as one likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. Therefore, the question whether construction or structural alterations in the building amounts diminishing its value or utility or to disfigure it depends upon the facts of each case. The trial Court on consideration of the pleadings and analytical analysis of evidence of respective parties has rightly come to the conclusion, on the facts of the present case, that the constructions made by the defendant/tenant has disfigured the building and has diminished its value and utility. The removing of intervening wall in between two compartments of shops and also removal of common wall in between two separate accommodations is likely to diminish the value and utility of the building. The landlord has raised three shops, two out of them were let out to the defendant/tenant who is applicant before this Court. The third shop was let out to another tenant. By removing two walls, the tenant applicant without written permission of the landlady has rendered himself liable for ejectment under Section 20 (2)(c) of the Act, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bipin Kumar v. Roshan Anand (supra). The conversion of three shops into one shop from the point of view of the landlord has definitely diminished the value and utility of the building. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/landlady has rightly placed reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bipin Kumar v. Roshan Anand, (1993) JT (SC) 171 (supra) wherein it has been held "impairment of value or utility of building is from the point of the landlord and not of tenant. The first limb of Clause III of sub-section (2) of Section 13 is impairment of the building due to acts committed by the tenant and the second limb is of the utility or value of building has been materially impaired. The first limb of Clause III of sub-section (2) of Section 13 is impairment of the building due to acts committed by the tenant and the second limb is of the utility or value of building has been materially impaired. The acts of the tenant must be such that erection of wall had materially impaired the value of the utility of the demise premises”. The aforesaid observation has been approved and followed subsequently by it in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalik Rubber Industries, AIR 1996 SC 3057 . The meaning of the expression “to impair materially” in common parlance would mean to diminish in quality, strength or value substantially. In other words to make a thing or substance worse and deteriorate. The word “impair” cannot be said to have a fixed meaning. It is a relative term affording different meaning in different context and situations. Here In the context the term “impair materially’ has been used to mean, considerable decrease in quality which may be measured with reference to the antecedent state of things as it existed earlier in point of time as compared to a later stage after the alleged change is made or affected suggesting impairment. Further the use of the word ‘“value” means intrinsic worth of a thing. In other words utility of an object of a person. It may also be noted here that the aforesaid two cases of the Apex Court were noted by it in the case of Waryam Singh (supra). Therefore, there is no departure of the above legal position till date. The statement of the landlady that the defendant/tenant has diminished the value of the building by making offended constructions and structural alterations as it has weakened the foundation of the building in question, is practically unrebutted. 20. She has deposed as follows : “PRATIBADI KE DWARA APANE KIRAYEDARI WALE BHAG MAI TOD PHOD KAR NAYA NIRMAN KARBAYA KJGAYA JISASE MAKAN KI NEEV KAMJOR HOGAYEE JO DO DUKANO KE BEECH DIWAL THI USE BHI PRATIBADI DWARA HATA DIYA GAYA JISASE BHAWAN AUR KAMJOR HOGAYA.” 21. It is interesting to note that to the above statement made in examination in chief no question was put by the defendant at the time of cross-examination of the landlady. It is interesting to note that to the above statement made in examination in chief no question was put by the defendant at the time of cross-examination of the landlady. The defendant/tenant in his statement on oath has not stated that constructions made by him has not diminished its value or utility and foundation of the building has not been weakened. Only this much has been stated that the constructions raised by him has enhanced the value of the shop and the house. He stated that “JO BHI NIRMAN KARA YE HAI USASE DUKAN TATHA MAKAN KE MULYANKAN MAI BRADDHI HOGAYEE HAI.” This is all which he could state on oath in his deposition. The trial Court on the basis of appreciation of evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the building in dispute has become weak and the structural alterations made by the defendant had diminished the value and utility of the building and also the building is disfigured. There is no legal or factual infirmity in the aforesaid finding of the trial Court. 22. To show the mala fide of landlady, the defendant applicant set up a theory which he could not substantiate that he enhanced the rent even before the alleged permission was granted to him by the landlady. But the fact is that the shop was let out to him at Rs. 826/- per month and the theory of enhancement of rent was the own creation of the defendant/tenant and he could not prove it by producing any evidence in support thereof. 23. Before parting with the judgment, it is apt to note the argument of the learned Counsel for the landlady to the effect that the suit giving rise to the present revision was filed in the year 1999 and it took almost seven years in its disposal, when the suit was tried as small causes suit. The landlady is an old, aged and widow, living all alone at Kanpur and the defendant/tenant after obtaining permission in writing for dismantling the inner wall of the shop has carried on extensive constructions against the wishes and consent of the landlady, unauthorisedly, unfortunately, that is not the end of the matter. It has also come on record that the landlady is being subjected to harassment and a criminal case is pending against her at the instance of present defendant/tenant. It has also come on record that the landlady is being subjected to harassment and a criminal case is pending against her at the instance of present defendant/tenant. The injunction suit filed by the landlady as far back as in the year 1993 is still going on. 24. No other point was pressed before me. 25. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed accordingly and the judgment and order of the Court below is hereby confirmed. 26. No order as to costs. Revision Dismissed. ———