Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.— This revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act filed by the tenants-defendants (revisionists herein) challenges the validity of the judgement and order dated 13.03.2013, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Bulandshahar, whereby SCC Suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord (respondent herein) for eviction from premises in question has been decreed and the tenants-defendants (revisionists herein) have been directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises in question with a further direction to pay damages for use of premises at the rate of Rs.1285.00 per month from the date of institution of Suit till the date of handing over the possession of the premises in question to the plaintiff-landlord. Heard Sri Nitin Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent. The father of sole respondent, late Ram Chandra Goel, filed a suit for ejectment against the tenants-defendants (revisionists herein) on the ground that (i) defendants have materially altered the godown (premises in question) by constructing a wall whereby partitioning the godown which has resulted in diminishing the value and utility of the tenanted premises and in its disfigurement and that (ii) the defendants have defaulted in paying rent since 16.12.2002. Thus, the grounds taken in the suit seeking ejectment of the tenants-defendants by the plaintiff (respondent herein) were two folds i.e. ejectment was sought not only on the ground of default in making payment of rent but also on the ground of materially altering the premises. The suit was contested by the tenants-defendants (revisionists herein) and it has been decreed on the ground of material alteration by the learned court below though finding regarding the default has been given in favour of the tenants-defendants giving them the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Thus, the question for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether findings recorded by the learned court below regarding material alteration which resulted in diminishing the value and utility of the tenanted premises and in its disfigurement need to be interfered with or not. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned court below. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned court below. One of the issues framed was to the effect as to whether the tenants-defendants have made certain constructions which amount to material alteration and have resulted in diminishing the value and utility of the godown and further as to whether such material alteration has caused disfigurement of the godown or not. Learned court below while considering the case of the respective parties has given a finding that the tenants-defendants have caused material alteration in the building which has resulted in diminishing both, the value and utility of the tenanted premises and has further caused its disfigurement. For arriving at the aforesaid conclusion on issue no.1, learned court below has referred to a statement of DW-1-Sachin Sahani, who in his cross-examination has admitted that on the spot the premises in dispute exists in the shape of two rooms and further that one room can accommodate four hundred sacks of salt. This witness has further admitted during his cross-examination that in case wall was not there in the godown, the same space could have been utilized to store more quantity of goods. Based on the said admission made by none other than DW-1-Sachin Sahani himself, the learned court below has come to the conclusion that on account of construction of wall which has partitioned the godown both, the utility and value of the tenanted godown has gone down. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the cases of Satish Chand Kakkar and four others vs VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and eight others, reported in 2006 (1) ARC 739 , Hari Singh vs VIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar and others, reported in 2006 (1) ARC 408 and Waryam Singh vs Baldev Singh, reported in 2003 (1) SCC 59 whereas learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has placed heavy reliance on the cases of Shahid Ali and others vs Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad and others, reported in 1997 (2) ARC 459 , Udai Bhan Gupta and others vs Hari Shankar Bansal and another, reported in 1985 (2) ARC 20 and also on the judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Umesh Kumar vs Arun Kumar and others, Writ-A No. 63148 of 2012, decided on 05.12.2012. I have given my anxious consideration to the competing arguments advanced by learned counsels for respective parties. I have given my anxious consideration to the competing arguments advanced by learned counsels for respective parties. It is well settled in law that the landlord seeking decree of ejectment on the ground that tenant has made construction which amounts to material alteration and also diminishes the utility and value of tenanted building, is expected to establish that tenant has made some construction without landlord's written permission and further that the construction so made is such that it is resulting in diminishing the value and utility of the tenanted building or it is resulting in disfiguring the same. It is also well settled that requirement of Section 20 (2) (c) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 stands fulfilled if the case falls in any of three categories, namely, (1) diminishing the utility of the premises in question, (2) diminishing its value and (3) disfiguring the rented premises. So far as the instant case is concerned, a categorical finding has been recorded by the court below that construction of the wall dividing godown was made without written permission of the landlord. As to whether the construction of wall which has divided the godown, is material alteration or not will be apparent by examining the construction made. Admittedly, the tenants-defendants in the instant case have constructed a boundary wall which has resulted in dividing the rented godown in two parts, both of which are being used as separate godowns for the reason that wall dividing original godown also has a door. Thus, so far as the nature of construction made in the instant case is concerned, there is no doubt that structural alterations are material in nature. As regards the issue as to whether structural alteration made in the instant case has resulted in diminishing the value and utility of the godown and in its disfigurement, it would suffice to say that finding recorded by the court below is based on the deposition made by none other than DW-1--Sachin Sahani to the effect that in case boundary wall was not constructed the same godown would have been in a position to store more quantity of goods. Thus, the result of construction of wall partitioning the godown is that the capacity of godown to store the goods has gone down, which certainly diminishes its utility. Thus, the result of construction of wall partitioning the godown is that the capacity of godown to store the goods has gone down, which certainly diminishes its utility. As regards the judgements cited by learned counsel for the revisionists, it can safely be said that the same do not have any application so far as instant case is concerned. The first case cited by learned counsel for the revisionists is the case of Satish Chand Kakkar and four others (supra) wherein constructions made in the premises in question in the said case were discussed and it was found that nature of construction in the said case is such that the same does not amount to damage the building or materially alter the same. As to whether the construction materially alters the building or results in diminishing its value or utility differs from case to case. As observed above, in the instant case DW-1 i.e. tenant himself has admitted that had the wall not been constructed partitioning the godown, godown in its original shape would have had more storage capacity. Thus, since the storage capacity has gone down on account of construction of wall in the instant case as such utility of building has certainly diminished. So far as other cases of Hari Singh (supra) and Waryam Singh (supra) cited by learned counsel for the revisionists are concerned, it is stated that the said judgements are also based on the particular nature of constructions which had taken place in the said cases. As already observed above, the question as to whether particular construction disfigures the building or results in diminishing its utility and value is a question which cannot be generalized. Answer to said question depends upon the nature of the construction in each individual case and may differ from case to case. It is well settled that while exercising the jurisdiction of revision, findings of fact recorded by the court below are not to be disturbed unless the same are found to be absolutely perverse or the same are based on no evidence at all. In the instant case, as already observed above, the finding recorded by court below regarding diminishing the value and utility of the godown is based on deposition of DW-1 i.e. tenant himself, hence the same, in my opinion, warrants no interference in the instant revision petition. In the instant case, as already observed above, the finding recorded by court below regarding diminishing the value and utility of the godown is based on deposition of DW-1 i.e. tenant himself, hence the same, in my opinion, warrants no interference in the instant revision petition. The conclusion arrived by the learned court below cannot be said to be erroneous in law and hence, this Court finds it difficult to take a view which may be contrary to the view taken by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the revisionists has failed to persuade this Court to agree with his submissions. In the result, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost. _____________