Arun Tandon, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner before this Court is the tenant of disputed shop more appropriately described in the plaint of the suit filed for eviction of the tenant being SCC Suit No. 11 of 2002. In the plaint allegation, it was stated that the shop in question is adjacent to house of the petitioner-tenant and that the tenant wanted to open a door for connecting the shop with his residential house. This was not only illegal but shall also cause damage to the property. Other allegations qua default in payment of rent and taxes i.e. house and water tax were also made against the tenant. Petitioner contested the said proceedings and it was stated that there has absolutely no change in the structure of the shop and there was no attempt to open any new door, the shop continues in same status s it existed at the time as it was let out to the petitioner. It was further stated that there was no material alteration, which may diminish the value of the shop and lastly that there has been no default in payment of rent so as to justify filing of the suit proceedings. 3. During the pendency of the said suit, before the Judge, Small Causes Court, application was filed for appointment of Court Commissioner. Such appointment of the Court Commissioner was got delayed on repeated applications being made by the tenant and ultimately the Court Commissioner visited the shop in question. In his report, it was specifically recorded that a door had been opened towards the residential house of the tenant so as to provide ingress and outgress directly from the shop to his house and further that the building material was still lying at the place of construction. 4. So far as the issue of default of payment of rent is concerned, it was contended that the petitioner was liable to be paid house tax, water tax in addition of rent agreed upon between the parties. Admittedly the petitioner-tenant has failed to pay such water and house tax and therefore, default in payment was established on record. 5. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 16th July, 2008, after considering the report of the Court Commissioner and the statements made by the plaintiff's Witnesses Nos. Admittedly the petitioner-tenant has failed to pay such water and house tax and therefore, default in payment was established on record. 5. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 16th July, 2008, after considering the report of the Court Commissioner and the statements made by the plaintiff's Witnesses Nos. 1 to 3 in comparison to the statements made by the Defence Witnesses recorded a categorical finding that at the time the shop was let out to the petitioner there was no door from which, ingress and outgress could be made directly from the shop in question to the residential house of the petitioner-tenant. Opening of the door has taken place after the institution of the suit. Reference was also made to the categorical statements made by the Plaintiff's witnesses, which amongst others specifically stated that at the time the shop in question was let out to the tenant, there was no door connecting the house of the tenant to the shop. Evidence led by the petitioner has not been believed in preference to that led by the plaintiff. The Prescribed Authority has therefore, recorded a finding that there has been material alterations in the shop which has diminished its value and utility. Similarly in respect of default committed in payment of house tax and water tax along with rent, a finding has been recorded that the defendant was under legal obligation to deposit such taxes along with rent in view of specific language of Section 20 (4) of Act 13 of 1972 read with Order 15 Rule 5 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was therefore, decreed and the petitioner-defendant was directed to be evicted from the shop in question. 6. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, petitioner filed a revision being SCC Revision No. 11 of 2008. The Revisional Court vide order dated 3rd February, 2011, has affirmed the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court after considering the evidence on record and it has been specifically held that the liability for payment of taxes along with rent could not be dislodged by the petitioner in view of specific language of Section 20 (4) of Act 13 of 1972 read with Order 15 Rule 5 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been recorded that the petitioner has hopelessly failed to establish the deposit of taxes directly to the Nagar Nigam. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 7. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that there was no pleading in the plaint to the fact that the door has been constructed by the tenant, which has resulted in diminishing the value of the shop in question or its utility and therefore, the orders are bad. For the purpose, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G. Reghunathan vs. K.V. Varghese reported in AIR 2005 SC 3680 as well as upon the judgements of this Court in the case of Mooli vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Mathura & others reported in 1989 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 152, Chandan Lal vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Aligarh & Another reported in 2004 (U.P.) RCC 768, and Yashpal Gupta & others vs. Third Additional District Judge, Moradabad & others reported in 1986 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 476. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition. 9. From the allegations made in the plaint, it is apparently clear that there was a clear averment that the tenant was proceeding to open a door from the shop in question towards the residential house so as to provide ingress and outgress directly from his house of the tenant and shop. It was not only illegal but also in breach of the contract. During the pendency of the said suit, a Court Commissioner was appointed and it has been found by the Commissioner that a door infact has been opened for connecting the residential house of the tenant with the shop in question. From the oral evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff, it was establish that there was no such door at the time the shop was let out to the tenant. Therefore, the trial court is legally justified in coming to the conclusion that such door has been opened by the tenant during the pendency of the said suit, which has connected the residential house of the petitioner with shop in question. Therefore, the trial court is legally justified in coming to the conclusion that such door has been opened by the tenant during the pendency of the said suit, which has connected the residential house of the petitioner with shop in question. I am of the considered opinion that finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court based on the evidence produced cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence, so as to warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The diminishing of the value and utility of the shop when it gets connected to the residential house of the tenant, has also rightly been concluded by both the courts below. 10. I am of the considered opinion that the land-lords' plea of unauthorised opening of the door connected the shop in question with the residential house of the tenant is established and such act of the tenant necessarily diminishes the value and its utility. This amounts to material alteration diminishing the value of the property without the permission of the land lord. 11. So far as the plea of non-payment of taxes along with rent is concerned, this Court finds that finding so recorded by the courts below are based on true and correct appreciation of Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. It was liability of the tenant to deposit the house and water tax along with rent agreed upon between the parties, he has failed to do so and therefore, the suit has been rightly decreed. 12. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that some reasonable time may be granted to the tenant for vacation of the shop in question as he is in occupation of the same since 1982 and that he shall close the door, which has been opened during the pendency of the suit as per the findings recorded by the courts blow. 14. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that interest of substantial justice would be served by providing at that the petitioner may not be evicted from the premises in question till 31st March, 2012 provided that (a) within one month from today, he gets the door, which has been opened during the pendency of the suit proceedings, closed, (b) he files an affidavit in form of undertaking before the Judge, Small Causes Court that he shall hand over the peaceful possession of the shop in question to the land-lord on or before 31st March, 2012, (c) he deposits the damages for the use and occupation of the premises till 31st December, 2012 in advance by way of a bank draft along with his affidavit. In case of default, he shall not be entitled to the benefits of this order. 15. The present writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.