( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-tenant-defendant who is tenant of accommodation in question which are shops was required to be vacated by the respondent-landlord-plaintiff and for this purpose a suit was filed before the Judge Small Cause Court (Munsif), Bijnor in 1982 for the purpose of recovery of rent and damages from the petitioner-tenant and its ejectment from the shops on rent @ Rs. 31/- per month as it had failed to pay the rent w. e. f. February 1982 and since it had also not paid the due taxes in spite of notice. The other allegation was that the defendants had also disfigured the property in question by demolishing certain part of which was in its tenancy by making material and substantial changes such as raising and lowering the hight of the flooring of the shops and putting the door on the wall in between the two shops, removing one door and chaukhat and demolishing the permanent chabutara and misappropriating the debris and that the tenant had removed the sardal and replaced it by beam/lintel and laid slab in the northern and southern wall which not only caused damage to the shops but also caused substantial damage to the upper storey weakening the construction and diminishing its value. The suit was contested by the petitioner denying all the allegations therein and stated that the changes brought in that the plastering of the wall and change of the doors and putting the iron shutters was necessary repair made on the instruction of the plaintiff-landlord. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, recorded evidence and after hearing the parties decreed the plaintiffs suit partly. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-defendant-tenant being aggrieve by the decree filed a revision before the lower appellate Court. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, recorded evidence and after hearing the parties decreed the plaintiffs suit partly. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-defendant-tenant being aggrieve by the decree filed a revision before the lower appellate Court. The revisional Court after hearing the parties and perusal of the entire record came to the conclusion that the finding of the trial Court was not without evidence nor it could be termed as perverse and, therefore, the findings could not be set aside in revision though it held that the claim of the plaintiff for damages could not be allowed in law by the Judge Small Causes Court/munsif but the suit as such could not be thrown away as a whole but such objections were not taken as preliminary objection so that the plaintiff could have had an opportunity to forego or strike of the said reliefs and that the trial Court had rightly not allowed such damages. No plea of multifariousness was taken by the defendant at the trial stage in its written statement and, therefore, it could not be taken at the revisional stage. The revisional Court finding no force, dismissed the revision with costs. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant. Three points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner; firstly, that there were separate tenancies of each shop and, therefore, one common suit was not maintainable. It has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Ram Chandra Vs. Judge, Small Cause Court, Farokkhabad and others, reported in 1984 Vol. 1 ARC. Page-138. The second point is that in the earlier Rent Control Act the words "material alteration" were used which are not found in the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 where the words "structural alteration" has been used. That the defendants-tenants have not made any structural alteration at all and, therefore, the provisions of Section 20 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are not attracted. ( 5 ) I have perused the record and find that the petitioner has failed to prove that two separate tenancies were entered into between the parties. No documentary proof is on record. There is joint rent receipt for Rs. 31. 00 of both the shops. ( 5 ) I have perused the record and find that the petitioner has failed to prove that two separate tenancies were entered into between the parties. No documentary proof is on record. There is joint rent receipt for Rs. 31. 00 of both the shops. Had there been separate tenancies of Rs. 15. 50 paise for each shop entered into during different period then till the period second tenancy was not entered into the rent receipt of first tenancy amounting to Rs. 15. 50 paise would have been issued and placed on record but that is not the case. On the second point I find that as per the provisions of Section 20 (2) (c) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 "if the tenant has made or permitted to be made written permission of the landlord any such construction or structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigured it. " A right accrues to the landlord to file a suit for eviction against such tenant. In the present case there is a categorical finding of fact based on material evidence that the alterations and demolitions so made have diminished the value and utility of the premises in question and disfigured and weakened the first floor of the property in question. These are the relevant material and evidence on record would not be re-appreciated by this Court in writ jurisdiction. ( 6 ) LOOKING into the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the case stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact recorded in the impugned orders suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of record. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned orders while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. .