TRIYUGI NARAIN MISHRA Vs. DR. (MRS.) KALA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this regular first appeal, the appellant was the defendant in the suit filed by the landlady Dr. (Mrs.) Kala Mehta for eviction against the appellant of the premises situated in A-29, Vidhyalaya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur the appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City (Civil Suit No. 12/1983) by which judgment the suit has been decreed with an order of ejectment.

(2.) The premises in question are said to have been taken on rent on 1.5.1976 by the appellant for the use for running of Central Academy School and a written rent note was executed between the parties. Respondent No. 1, the plaintiff, was living in foreign country and as per the allegations, the appellant had made certain constructions on the open space without the consent or permission of the landlady and as such had made material alterations in the building. Respondent No. 2 M/s. Upasana Constructions Pvt. Ltd. is the purchaser of the said premises by the registered sale-deed executed on 5.1.1990 and has been substituted in the place of original land-lord and, therefore, was entitled to receive the rent, pursuing the suit and also to get the premises in question vacated by way of decree of eviction for having purchased the same during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) In the reply filed by the appellant-defendant, it was stated that the premises in question were taken on rent for running the Central Academy School with the condition that the tenant would be allowed to make temporary construction on the open space and also on the existing building of the school on his own expenses. It was stated by the tenant that immediately after taking the building on rent certain changes were made and were completed before starting the session of the school in July 1976. It was denied that any construction had been made by taking the benefit of absence of the landlady. It was also denied that any material change has been made in the building or that its value has been diminished. It was also the contention of the defendant-appellant that the subsequent purchaser does not acquire any right to continue the eviction proceedings on the ground of material alteration for the reason that the purchaser had purchased the property as it was.