SOHAN LAL Vs. RAM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite the persuasiveness of Sim, Swaran Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant who made a valiant effort to demolish the finding of fact reached by the High court and the courts below that the constructions in question brought about a material alteration in the demised premises, we find it difficult to accept her submissions. The High court and the courts below have found that the demised premises which consisted of an ahata with a dalan and a kotho inside it let out for the purposes of running a dairy. In this ahata, the appellant had put up a chhappar and then replaced it with a tin shed. He also raised a kuchcha platform and made it permanent. The limited question was whether the tin shed with pucca pillars and raising of the platform making it permanent amount to material alteration within the meaning of S. 3 (1) (c) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The High court has answered the question in the affirmative and we find no reason to differ from it. The appeal must accordingly fail and is dismissed. We, however, givetime up to 31/03/1989 to the appellant to vacate the demised premises on his filing the usual undertaking in this court within six weeks from today and further on condition that the appellant shall pay Rs. 150. 00 per month w. e. f. 1/04/1987 towards use and occupation charges to the respondent.