RATANLAL Vs. MOTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal directed against the appellate decree for eviction by the learned Civil Judge, Beawar and raises the point whether a tenant has or has not made any material alteration within the meaning of sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, is a question of law or one of fact or both. It arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent sought the eviction of the tenant on three grounds: (1) of bona fide personal necessity, (2) default in payment of rent, and (3) material alteration made by the tenant in the suit premises. THE first court held against the landlord on the question of personal necessity and about the defaults in payment of rent but decreed the suit on the ground that the tenant had made material alterations in the suit premises. It was, inter alia, averred in the plaint that the defendant-tenant had closed the open 'chabutri' in front of the shop by a wooden partition and by making Pucka construction. According to he plaintiff, this was without his consent. In the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer, the only question that was argued was whether these were material alterations so as to render the tenant liable to eviction on that score. THE learned Additional District Judge went into the evidence and came to the conclusion that the tenant had enclosed the open 'chabutri' of the shop by placing shutters at the end of the 'chabutri' and by covering the same. This was material alteration, according to the learned Judge. In the result, therefore, the learned Judge affirmed the decree of the first court and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THE learned Judge went on to say that the word 'materially' or the word 'altered' had not been defined in the Act. THErefore, he took their dictionary meaning. Referring to Concise Oxford Dictionary he observed that the word "alter" as a verb means 'change in character, position etc' and 'materially' as an adverb means 'important, essentially, concerned with matter not with form. ' Thus he construed the words "materially altered" to mean a change in the character or position of the accommo- dation which was essential or important. He referred to some English cases as well from which he deduced the principle that the question whether the accommodation in a particular case is materially altered by some construction made by a tenant must naturally depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. THEn he indicated some considerations for dealing with this question which I need not notice.