JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition filed by the tenant against the order passed by the revisional court dated 5.2.1980 under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, whereby the revisional court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the tenant.
2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under :
"That the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of structural alteration as contemplated under Section 20 (2)(c) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act'). The trial court by the judgment dated 25.1.1978, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby the landlord preferred a revision before the revisional court. The revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the trial court and decreed the suit throughout filed by the plaintiff-landlord."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit has been decreed on the ground that the provisions of Section 20 (2)(c) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are attracted. For ready reference the provisions of Section 20 (2)(c) are quoted below :
"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."
4. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that there has to be pleadings and according to that the case of the plaintiff has to be proved in order to attract the provisions of Section 20 (2)(c). The plaintiff has to plead that the tenant without consent of the landlord in writing has altered the accommodation in dispute including the structural alteration which diminished the valuation of the building. From the perusal of the plaint it is clear that there is no such pleading and in absence of such it is settled that the suit could not have decreed.
5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order of the revisional court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, is set aside because no useful purpose will be served by sending it back to the revisional court as there is no pleading. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the revisional court is set aside and the order of the trial court is maintained. There will be no order as to costs.