BANARASI DAS Vs. RAMESHWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a very important and interesting question of law in regard to interpretation of Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No XVII of 1950) (for short 'the Act' hereafter ).

(2.) THE facts leading to filing this appeal may briefly be recounted here: THE plaintiff-appellant (landlord) instituted a suit for ejectment against the defendant-respondents in the Court of Munsif, Hanumangarh on January 6,. 1965 in respect of a shop situate in Bazar, Hanumangarh junction, described in para 1 of the plaint. THE ejectment was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the defendants have, without the permission of the landlord, made construction which has materially altered the premises (shop ). Para 4 of the plaint contains this ground for ejectment which is as under: *** THE defendant contested the suit. It regard to material alteration, it was stated that they had not done any material alteration in the shop, which was taken on rent by them from the plaintiff.

(3.) BEFORE I proceed to examine them, I consider it necessary to state the findings of the learned Civil Judge in this regard. He found that when Rame-shwarlal got the land, in front of the shop allotted from the Municipality and constructed the room on this land, there remains no other way for going into the shop and as such the defendants had made material alteration in the demised shop and as so on account of this, the defendants have rendered themselves liable to eviction under Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Act. The Additional District Judge held that the defendants have not made any construction in the shop in suit and, therefore, it cannot be said that it has been materially altered. In these circumstances, the question that crops up for determination is whether the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge that in order to entitle the plaintiff (Landlord) to evict the defendants (tenants) from the premises, the construction complained of should have been made in the premises let out to the latter resulting in its material alteration, is correct ?