JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This is a tenant's petition which has arisen out of ejectment proceedings initiated by the landlord of the premises in question on two grounds, namely, (1) on the ground of default and (2) on the ground of structural alteration. 3. A suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages was filed, which has partly been decreed by the Judge, Small Cause Court by means of judgment and order dated 23.03.2010, against which, petitioner preferred a SCC Revision, which too has been dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 01.03.2011, passed by the revisional court. These judgments dated 23.03.2010 and 01.03.2011 are under challenge in this petition. 4. The dispute relates to a shop in House No. 9A, Havelock Road, District Lucknow. The plaintiffs are joint owners and landlords. The shop is situated on the ground floor of the house which was rented on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month. The suit was filed with the assertion that the petitioner had defaulted in making the payment of rent from 01.07.2006 to 31.08.2007 and further that he has also failed to pay the water tax and sewer charges. The other ground taken in the suit before the learned trial court below was based on Section 20(2)(c) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and it was averred that without permission of the landlord in writing, the tenant has constructed a Pakka Gumti in front of the shop on the land appurtenant to the house which amounts to structural alteration and is likely to diminish its value and utility and also that it has disfigured it. 5. Learned trial court below has framed the following issues for consideration: - (1) As to whether the petitioner was liable to pay water tax and sewer tax in addition to the rent at the rate of Rs. 300/-? (2) As to whether the petitioner has constructed Pakka Gumti in front of the shop which has diminished the value and utility of the shop and has also resulted in disfiguring the same? (3) As to whether the petitioner has sublet the Pakka Gumti to one Sri Pintoo and shop No.2 to one Sri Ajeet Gupta? (4) As to whether service of notice is sufficient and valid? (5) As to whether the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent? (3) As to whether the petitioner has sublet the Pakka Gumti to one Sri Pintoo and shop No.2 to one Sri Ajeet Gupta? (4) As to whether service of notice is sufficient and valid? (5) As to whether the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent? (6) As to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972? (7) To what relief the landlord is entitled to? 6. Learned trial court concluded that the evidence available on record proved that additional amount of water tax and sewer tax is not payable by the petitioner. Learned trial court also concluded that petitioner had constructed a Pakka Gumti in front of the shop which has resulted in diminishing the value of the shop and has also disfigured the same. Learned trial court further concluded that shop has been sublet to Sri Ajeet Gupta and Pakka Gumti has been sublet to Sri Pintoo. Regarding notice, it has been found by the learned trial court below that service is sufficient and legally valid. Learned trial court has also concluded that at the time of service of notice, the monthly rent for the period of one and half years was due and further, it has been concluded that the petitioner may be entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, however, this itself will not save him from eviction for the reason that the landlord has been able to prove that the petitioner had made structural alteration and said alteration is diminishing the value and utility of the shop and is also disfiguring the same. Thus, the suit has been partially decreed and the petitioner has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the landlord and also to make payment of certain amount after deducting the amount paid by him under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 7. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the construction of Pakka Gumti, as alleged by the landlord, will not amount to any structural alteration, as such the ground enumerated under Section 20(2)(c) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not available to the landlord. 7. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the construction of Pakka Gumti, as alleged by the landlord, will not amount to any structural alteration, as such the ground enumerated under Section 20(2)(c) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not available to the landlord. In support of his submission, he has submitted that the ground enumerated in Section 20(2)(c) is not available to the landlord and the petitioner-tenant had complied with the provision of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He has also stated that Pakka Gumti said to have been constructed is not in the building but in front of the building and hence, such construction will not amount to structural alteration of the building and thus, ground enumerated in Section 20(2(c) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not available to the landlord. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgments reported in (1979) 5 ALR 113 , Sana Ullah v. Ashok Kapil and others, [ 2006 (24) LCD 1040 ], Satish Chand Kakkar and others v. Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, [ 2012 (30) LCD 2422 ], Yusuf Ali v. Additional District Judge and another, [ 2009 (27) LCD 1400 , Smt. Sarojini Devi Sinha @ Saroj Sinha v. Pradeep Kumar Arora and another and [ 2004 (22) LCD 1696 , Harnam Das v. 2nd Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur and another. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that all the legal representatives are necessary party and they must be impleaded as tenants in an ejectment suit. In support of his submission he has relied upon the case reported in (2004) 1 AWC 5 , Gauri Shankar Gupta v. Anita Mishra and another and [ 2007 (25) LCD 264 , Lalit Kumar v. Neel Kantheshwar and others. 9. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the construction of Pakka Gumti, since, was not in the building as such it will not amount structural alteration in the building and hence the ground mentioned in Section 20(2)(c) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not available to the landlord. 10. Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 bars suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds. 10. Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 bars suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds. One of the ground is mentioned in Section 20(2)(c) of the Act which runs as under: - “20(2)(c)- that the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural alteration in the building, as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it.” 11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Pakka Gumti was not constructed in the building as such it will not amount structural alteration. The said submission, in my considered opinion, is not acceptable. 'Building' has been defined in Section 3 (i) of the Act to mean a residential or nonresidential roofed structure and includes any land appurtenant to such building. Section 3(i) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is quoted below: - “3(i)- “Building”, means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes- (i) any land (including any garden), garages and outhouses appurtenant to such building; (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building; (iii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. 12. Thus, building would include the land appurtenant to such building. Admittedly, in the present case the Pakka Gumti has not been constructed in the building that is to say, it has not been constructed in any part of the building, rather it has been constructed in front of the building. In other words, it has been constructed in the land appurtenant to the building. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted that land appurtenant would not mean any land other than the land which was procured by the landlord for construction. According to him, land appurtenant would mean the land which remains available after construction of the building and would not include the land which though is appurtenant to the building but does not belong to the landlord. Submission, thus, is that in the instant case Pakka Gumti is not constructed on the land belonging to the landlord, rather it is constructed in front of the building on the road, hence, construction of Pakka Gumti would not amount to alteration in the building in terms of the provision contained under Section 20(2)(c) of the Act. Submission, thus, is that in the instant case Pakka Gumti is not constructed on the land belonging to the landlord, rather it is constructed in front of the building on the road, hence, construction of Pakka Gumti would not amount to alteration in the building in terms of the provision contained under Section 20(2)(c) of the Act. 14. Admittedly, the Pakka Gumti has been constructed just in front of the building in which shop in question exists. There is no doubt that construction of Pakka Gumti in such a manner would not only diminish the value and utility of the shop but it would disfigure the building as well. Structural alteration in the present case may not be in the building or land belonging to the landlord, however, if it is likely to diminish the value and utility of the building and also disfigured the building, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that since the Pakka Gumti has been constructed on the land of the road as such ground as enumerated in Section 20(2)(c) of the Act would not available. The relevant consideration to apply the provision of Section 20(2)(c) of the Act is whether the constructions are substantial in nature and alter the structure of the accommodation. In my considered opinion, even if the Pakka Gumti does not exist on the land belonging to the landlord but if it is likely to diminish the value and utility of the building and to disfigure the same, such construction would fall within the mischief which has been enumerated as one of the grounds for eviction under Section 20(2)(c) of the Act. 15. It is also noteworthy that Pakka Gumti has been constructed just in front of the shop and value and utility has diminished or not is an issue which is not to be seen from the perception of an individual but it has to be seen from general point of view and in particular from the point of view of the landlord. 16. In the instant case, learned trial court has given categorical finding that construction of Pakka Gumti just in front of building was made which has resulted in not only disfiguring the building but also in diminishing its value and utility. 16. In the instant case, learned trial court has given categorical finding that construction of Pakka Gumti just in front of building was made which has resulted in not only disfiguring the building but also in diminishing its value and utility. Thus, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that land appurtenant to the building would mean the land which belongs to the landlord cannot be accepted. 17. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on various judgments mentioned above is also of no avail to him. In the case of Sana Ullah (Supra), Ahata existing on the land was not held to be a building within a meaning of said term defined in Section 3 of the Act. In the instant case, Pakka Gumti in itself may not be a building, however, the same would certainly amount to structural alteration which has the capability of diminishing the value and utility of the shop in question and to disfigure the same. 18. In the case of Satish Chand Kakkar (supra), it has been held that placing of shutter, raising of boundary wall and construction of Chabutra would not amount to material alteration. However, in the instant case, it is not that any shutter has been placed or boundary wall has been extended or any Chabutra has been constructed. What has been constructed is a Pakka Gumti which has the potential of diminishing the value and utility of the building and also disfiguring the same as the same has been constructed just in front of the shop. In this view, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid judgment of Satish Chand Kakkar (supra) is misconceived. 19. In the case of Yusuf Ali (supra), it has been held by this Court that in a suit filed for eviction on the ground of material alteration, the Court has to first record the finding of actual construction made by the tenant and such finding is a finding of fact and thereafter the court would form an opinion whether such constructions have materially altered the building. In the instant case, learned court below has recorded categorical finding that tenant had constructed Pakka Gumti without permission of the landlord. In the instant case, learned court below has recorded categorical finding that tenant had constructed Pakka Gumti without permission of the landlord. The relevant finding of the learned trial court below is as under: - ^^bl izdkj bl laca/k esa i=koyh ij tks lk{; miyC/k gSa] mlesa oknhx.k dk ;g dFku lkfcr gS fd izfroknh }kjk fcuk oknhx.k ds lgefr o vuqefr ds ewy fdjk;snkjh okys nqdku ds lkeus iDdk xqeVh dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k] ftlls iz'uxr nqdku ds Lo: i esa ifjorZu o fo: iu gqvk o mi;ksfxrk ?kVhA** 20. In view of the aforesaid categorical finding, the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 21. Regarding the other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the legal heirs must have been impleaded as tenants in the suit, I may only observe that in the written statement filed, no such plea was taken by the tenant. Written statement is on record as Annexure No. 5 to the petition. 22. It may also be emphasised that construction of Pakka Gumti which is just in front of the shop in question would considerably affect the use of the shop which would impair the worth and usefulness or the value and utility of the rented shop. This Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Gupta v. Sri Surya Prakash Gupta, (Writ-A No. 64164 of 2009, decided on 26.08.2013 has held that the Court must address itself to the nature, character of the constructions and the extent to which they may change the front and structure of the accommodation, having regard to the purpose for which the accommodation may have been let out to the tenant. 23. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, construction of Pakka Gumti has altered the front of the accommodation and such structural alteration has diminished the value and utility of the building as such ground as enumerated in Section 20(2)(c) of the Act is available to the landlord in this case. 24. For the reasons disclosed above and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that it is a case where this Court should interfere by taking a view that courts below have committed any manifest error which may justify interference. 25. The petition is, thus, dismissed. 26. 24. For the reasons disclosed above and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that it is a case where this Court should interfere by taking a view that courts below have committed any manifest error which may justify interference. 25. The petition is, thus, dismissed. 26. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.