JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.11.2011 passed by J.S.C.C./A.D.J. Court No. 3, Muzaffarnagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 30 of 2009, Saktu Ram v. Himmat Singh. Through the impugned order application filed by plaintiff respondent for amendment in the plaint has been allowed. 3. The suit has been filed by the landlord respondent against tenant applicant for his eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. The amendment was to the effect that during pendency of the suit defendant had substantially damaged the tenanted shop in dispute and had made structural changes therein and the said acts were done by the defendant on 14/15 May 2010 and thereafter the tenant had put a slab in front of the door and had elevated the floor. Under Section 20(2)(b) and (c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 tenant is liable to eviction on the ground of structural changes material alteration in and substantially damage to the tenanted building. 4. In my opinion there is absolutely no error in the impugned order. If something is alleged to have been done by the tenant during pendency of the suit which if proved may be a ground for eviction then such facts have to be permitted to be brought on record through amendment. In this regard reference may be made to Majati Subbarao v. P.K.K. Krishna Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2187 and J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. M.L. Murali, AIR 2002 SC 1061 (paras 11 to 17) wherein it has been held that if in the written statement tenant defendant denies the title of the landlord plaintiff then in that very suit eviction may be sought on the ground of denial of title after getting the plaint amended. 5. Accordingly, there is absolutely no error in the impugned order. The impugned order would have been without jurisdiction in case amendment had been rejected. 6. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. 7. Court below is directed to decide the suit very expeditiously. Before the Court below as well as this Court it was vehemently argued on behalf of the defendant that no structural alteration etc. as alleged by the landlord had been done by the tenant. As far as this aspect is concerned it will have to be seen after the evidence has been adduced. Before the Court below as well as this Court it was vehemently argued on behalf of the defendant that no structural alteration etc. as alleged by the landlord had been done by the tenant. As far as this aspect is concerned it will have to be seen after the evidence has been adduced. Merely because amendment application has been allowed it does not mean that the Court has recorded any finding regarding correctness of the allegation added through that. —————