LAWS(ALL)-1972-7-24

ABDUL RASHEED Vs. BASHIR HUSSAIN

Decided On July 11, 1972
ABDUL RASHEED Appellant
V/S
BASHIR HUSSAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant-tenant's appeal, from a concurrent decree evicting him from a shop of which the plaintiff-respondent was the landlord.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the defendant was a tenant in a shop of which the plaintiff was landlord on pay ment of Rs. 7.50 as rent per month. The shop was divided into two portions, a kotha at the back and a sort of gallery in front. The front portion in which the de fendant carried on his business fell down. The defendant reconstructed the front por tion and brought it into the same shape and form as before. Thereupon the plain tiff served upon the defendant a notice terminating his tenancy and asking him to quit on the expiry of 30 days from the ser vice of the notice. The defendant did not vacate the shop. The plaintiff then filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it was pleaded by the plain tiff that the defendant despite instructions to the contrary reconstructed afresh the front portion of the shop which had fallen down, without any permission or authority and besides this the defendant raised cer tain other new constructions. Then in paragraph 5 of the plaint the plaintiff pleaded that the above said constructions amounted to a material alteration and the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendant without obtaining permission of the Dis trict Magistrate. The defendant in his written statement refuted these allegations of the plaintiff and pleaded that on account of the negligence of the plaintiff the front portion of the shop had fallen down and after taking permission from the plaintiff he reconstructed the front part of the shop and brought it in the same shape as it stood before.

(3.) THE learned Munsif held that though the constructions were of the same nature as stood before but they having been raised by the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff in law amounted to material alteration. In this finding the learned Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction.