JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition having been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the matter finally at this stage. 2. Heard Sri Yasharth, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Sardar Mohindar Singh (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs i.e. respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/5) instituted Small Cause Suit No. 180 of 1989 against Mulkraj, father of petitioner, for ejectment from the building in dispute, which is a non-residential building namely a shop on the ground of sub-letting and structural alteration. The suit was dismissed by Small Cause Court vide judgment dated 4th September, 2009 but the said judgment has been reversed by Revisional Court by allowing S.C.C. Revision No. 61 of 2009 of the plaintiff-rvisionist vide impugned judgment dated 31st May, 2010. The Revisional Court has held that tenant incurred liability for ejectment on both the counts namely structural alteration and sub letting. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that judgment of Revisional Court is patently illegal and perverse. He submitted that under Section 20(2)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) a material alteration is wholly irrelevant and what is required to be proved by landlord is that, tenant has made construction or structural alteration so as to have resulted in diminishing its value or utility or its disfigurement. In the present case, Revisional Court has observed that structural alteration allegedly made by tenant have resulted in material alteration but there is not even a whisper in the entire Revisional Court’s judgment that it has resulted in diminishing value or utility of property in question or has resulted in its disfigurement. 5. Sri Manish Tandan, learned counsel for the respondents while confronting aforesaid aspect of the matter could neither dispute nor place anything from judgment of Revisional Court to show that Revisional Court has at all found anything so as to satisfy requirement of statute i.e. Section 20(2)(c) of Act, 1972 that alleged alteration or construction in building is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. 6. 6. In fact, I find that in the plaint itself there is no such pleading at all and if that is so, there is no question of any evidence to be adduced on this aspect. It is well established that no evidence can be adduced in respect to a fact not pleaded. Therefore, findings of Revisional Court about liability of tenant for ejectment under Section 20(2)(c) of Act, 1972 is clearly illegal, erroneous and cannot sustain. 7. Now, coming to the second aspect of the matter about sub letting. The petitioner Vishal Gulati claimed to be adopted son of original tenant Mulkraj. The Trial Court has found that he proved his valid adoption which took place in 1970. The Revisional Court has taken an otherwise view by observing that adoption could not be proved validly and therefore, premises in question having been occupied by petitioner, is stranger to the family, being not within the ambit of definition of ‘family’ under Section 3(g) of Act, 1972, the suit for ejectment of tenant is liable to be decreed on the ground of sub-letting. 8. Here also I find that Revisional Court has clearly erred in law. It has proceeded to observe that DW 1 and 2 both stated that the child under adoption was given to only adoptive father i.e. Mulkraj Gulati and there is no averment that he was also given to adoptive mother. On the contrary, from the judgment of Trial Court, I find that DW 1 has categorically stated that child was given by his natural parents to the adoptive parents. This finding of Trial Court has not been shown perverse and Revisional Court has not stated anywhere in the judgment in revision that this finding of Trial Court is misleading or misreading of the statements of DW 1 and 2. The Revisional Court has also proceeded to observe that since adoptive mother was not produced as a witness to verify about handing over of child to her, meaning thereby the adoption was not proved. This approach of Revisional Court is patently erroneous, inasmuch as, brother of natural parents of child under adoption and adoptive parents himself appeared as witness i.e. DW 1. He said that he was present at the time of adoption and categorically asserted that child was given by natural parents to the adoptive parents, both. This approach of Revisional Court is patently erroneous, inasmuch as, brother of natural parents of child under adoption and adoptive parents himself appeared as witness i.e. DW 1. He said that he was present at the time of adoption and categorically asserted that child was given by natural parents to the adoptive parents, both. It is not necessary that a large number of persons or parents themselves should come in the witness box to prove this fact particularly when what has been said by witness, who had personal knowledge of the event, is not found to be doubtful, or incorrect or there is any other reason to disbelieve his deposition. 9. In taking the above view, I am fortified by decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal U/S 374 Cr.P.C. No. 358 of 1982 (Autan (Atan) Singh and others v. State of U.P.) decided on 9th November, 2012, where in para 21 of the judgment, this Court said: “....it is not the number of witnesses examined which would be of any importance but it is the reliability and credibility of a witness or evidence which would determine whether the prosecution has been successful in substantiating the guilt against accused or not. Even a single piece of evidence, whether oral, documentary or circumstantial, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to record conviction against a person.” 10. I also find support from Apex Court’s decision in Smt. Chandan Bilasini (Dead) by L.R. v. Aftabuddin Khan and others, AIR 1996 SC 591 . 11. All other ingredients necessary for making an adoption valid in accordance with provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 have been proved. The Revisional Court did not find any otherwise infirmity except the fact that, according to him, in absence of adoptive mother, who was alive but not produced as witness, the valid adoption whether valid, would remain unproved. This approach of Revisional Court, as already discussed, I am not inclined to approve. The judgment of Revisional Court thus is unsustainable and deserve to fall. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by Additional District Judge II, Kanpur Nagar, is hereby set aside. The judgment dated 4.9.2009 of Trial Court is restored and confirmed. 13. No order as to costs. ——————