BHAGIRATH MAL Vs. YUVRANI SAHIBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the defendants has arisen out of the following facts :-

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent instituted a civil suit No. 188/1979 on 13. 7. 1979 for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that both the defendants (respectively father and son) are the tenants of the plaintiff respectively in shops No. 2 & 3 on monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. Both of them carry on restaurant in the suit shops. Eviction was sought on the ground of material alterations made by the defendants without consent of the plaintiff.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) provides that when the tenant has without the permission of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction as in the opinion of the court has materially altered the premises or is likely to diminish the value thereof, he would be liable to eviction. A perusal of these provisions shows that two grounds have been provided for eviction i. e. (i) material alterations in the premises and (ii) any such alteration which is likely to diminish the value of the premises. In view of these provisions it is not necessary to prove that the material alterations should diminish the value of the property. Even if by any alteration the value of the property is increased, the ground of eviction would not go away if such alteration is material in the opinion of the court and such alteration was made by the tenant without the permission of the landlord. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not seriously argue the questions No. 1 and 2 as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the questions No. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly that it is not necessary under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act to prove that the material alterations should be such which are likely to diminish or increase the value of the premises.