S.K. Dhaon, J.This is a tenants petition. The landlord, the respondent No. 3, instituted a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop on the ground that he (the petitioner) had made material alterations in accommodation let out to him without the permission of the landlord. The trial Court (Judge Small Causes) decreed the suit. The District Judge dismissed the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act preferred by the petitioner. Hence this petition.

2. The plaintiffs case was that the tenant extended the width of a projection to 4 whereas originally it was 2. The tenant also placed wooden planks on three sides and fixed shutters. He also removed old doors, which existed inside.

3. The trial Court on 19th May, 1976, decreed the suit. The matter was taken in revision by the tenant and the revisional Court allowed the same in part. It set aside the decree directing the ejectment of the tenant and dismissed the suit so far as the ejectment was concerned. However, it decreed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 93.90 as arrears of rent. The landlord came to this Court by means of Civil Revision No. 255 of 1977 which was disposed of on 20th November, 1979. This Court recorded a finding that the tenant made the offensive construction in 1964 when the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act) was applicable. This Court also took the view that even under the old Act the tenant was obliged to obtain the permission of the landlord in writing before making any material alterations. This Court held that since no finding had been recorded as to whether the nature of the constructions made by the tenant offended the provisions of the New Act or the Old Act the matter should be sent back to the Revisional Court for a decision thereon. Accordingly, this Court set aside the revisional order passed in favour of the petitioner and sent the case back to the Revisional Court for the decision of the revision afresh and in accordance with law.

4. The Revisional Court in paragraph 13 of its order observed :

"Therefore, we can safely conclude that the old shutters were removed. The width of the projection was extended from 2 to 4. The old doors were removed and new shutters have been fixed."

In view of the categorical finding of this Court in Civil Revision No. 255 of 1977 referred to above that the offensive constructions were made in the year 1964, neither the landlord nor the tenant can assert that the provisions of the Old Act are not applicable.

5. Clause (c) of sub-section 3 of the Old Act is relevant and may be extracted :-

"that the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such construction as, in the opinion of the Court, has materially altered the accommodation or is likely to substantially diminish it value."

It is neither the case of the landlord nor can it be that by the alterations made by the petitioner the value of the accommodation has been substantially diminished. It has been the consistent case of the landlord that the petitioner has materially altered the accommodation by making the constructions referred to above. The question, therefore, is whether having regard to the nature of the constructions made by the petitioner in the present case, can it be said that the petitioner has "materially altered the accommodation." The removal of old doors and affixation of new shutters cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to any material alteration of the constructions. We have, therefore, to focus on the increase of the width of the projection by 2. The provision extracted above of the Old Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Manmohan Das Shah and others v. Bishun Das, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 643. It was observed :-

"The expression "material alterations" in its ordinary meaning would mean important alterations such as those which materially or substantially change the front or the structure of the premises."

Their Lordships referred with approval to the case of Bickmore v. Dimmer, (1903)1 Ch. 158. In that case Vaughan Williams, L.J. observed :-

"In my opinion, the words "alterations to the said premises" apply only to the alterations which would affect the form or structure of the premises."

6. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter in the light of the aforementioned observations of the Supreme Court in Manmohan Dass case, I am of the opinion that by increasing the width of the projection to 4 from 2 the tenant did not alter either the form or the structure of the accommodation let out to him.

7. I have already indicated that for deciding this particular case the provisions of the Old Act, which have been extracted above, alone are relevant. However, even if by any stretch of imagination the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act) are applied, the case of the landlord will not be furnished. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of the Section 20 of the New Act is relevant and may be extracted :

"that the tenant without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural alterations in the building as is likely to diminish its value or, or utility or to disfigure it."

8. It will be immediately seen that in the New Act the Legislature has made an attempt to relax the rigour imposed by it upon a tenant under the Old Act. The provisions of the New Act permit material alteration. Under the New Act it has to be established by the landlord that there is a likelihood of the domination of the value or utility of the building or there is a likelihood of the disfigurement of the building Surely, by increasing the width of the shop neither its value has been diminished nor has it in any way been disfigured. If at all, the figure of the shop has been improved. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that no decree for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute could be passed on the ground of the violation of the provisions of either the Old Act or the New Act and the two Courts below patently erred in passing a such decree.

9. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18.5.1976 passed by the II Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr and the order dated 6th February, 1981 passed by the District Judge in so far as they relate to the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute are quashed. The suit instituted by the respondent No. 3 of the ejectment of the petitioner from the said shop stands dismissed. However, the decree passed by the Judge Small Causes for the arrears of rent against the petitioner shall stand.

10. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.