SUKHLAL Vs. BHOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of a shop.

(2.) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT had leased out his shop to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 13/ -. The suit for ejectment was based on the ground of defaults in payment of rent as also on the allegation that the defendant-tenant had made material alterations in the suit premises. It was alleged that the defendant had fixed a door in the open verandah of the shop and had thereby closed the outer portion of the shop. The defendant was further alleged to have made the 'kutcha' floor of the shop 'pucka' and also had plastered the walls which were 'kutcha'. The defendant admitted the fixation of the door, but asserted that it was so done with the consent of the plaintiff. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. Regarding the alterations he held that it was not correct that the alterations had been made by the defendant with the consent of the plaintiff. He then considered the question whether the alterations found to have been made by the defendant in the suit premises were within the mischief of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "act". The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the alterations made by the defendant in the suit premises were not mere repair work but they were material alterations within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act and as they were made without the consent, of the landlord, the defendant was liable to be ejected. The conclusions of the learned Munsif in his own words were as follows:--

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif the defendant went up in appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Udaipur. The learned Civil Judge, by and large, agreed with the learned Munsif. He observed: