PREM PUROHIT Vs. HEMANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGAL heirs of the deceased-original landlord Sh. Suraj Narain have challenged the judgment and decree dated 26. 9. 1998 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the suit of eviction.

(2.) ON 5. 8. 1991 the original landlord Sh. Suraj Narain filed the suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the tenant Sh. Prem Chand and sub-tenant Sh. Rambabu-the defendant No. 2 with the averments that a big hall consisting of two shops of municipal Nos. 94 & 95 was let out to the defendant No. 1 Prem Chand on monthly rent of Rs. 250/ -. Rent note was executed on 7. 4. 1978. Lateron monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 300/ -. The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent since January, 1987, material alteration in the year 1987 converting this hall into two separate shops in `l' shape and opening a new door by breaking the southern wall, sub-letting of one portion of shop No. 95 to the defendant No. 2 and non-user of the remaining shop by the defendant No. 1 for a period of about four years. By way of amended plaint filed in February, 1996 it was pleaded that during pendency of the suit the defendant No. 1 further let out a portion of 4ft x 4ft out of shop No. 95 to one Sh. Nagarmal who is carrying on STD-PCO in the said portion of 4ft x 4ft.

(3.) SECTION 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Rent of Control and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) provides that the decree of eviction may be passed in case 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. The alterations pleaded in paras 4 and 5 certainly amount to material alterations. In written statement, these alterations except opening a new door have been admitted. The trial court observed that the defendant No. 1 was authorized to make such alterations according to rent note Ex. 1. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the tenant was not authorized to make such additions/alterations and he did not obtain any permission of the landlord, while learned senior counsel for the respondents supported the findings of the trial court on this point. Ex. 1 is the rent note. At page 2 of Ex. 1 it was agreed between the landlord and the tenant that the tenant would maintain the suit shop in a proper way and whenever any necessity so arises, the tenant would have a right to repair, to make additions/alterations and construction in the suit premises on his own expenses without claiming any compensation from the landlord. The above contents of the rent note in no manner of doubt authorises the tenant not only to carry out repair works but also to make additions/alterations and to raise new construction. Hence, no permission of the plaintiff-landlord as provided under SECTION 13 (1) (c) of the Act was required by the tenant. The trial court further observed and rightly so that according to the plaintiff these alterations were carried out in the year 1987 and no objection whatsoever was raised by the plaintiff prior to filing the present suit in August, 1991 simply in view of the authority given to the tenant-defendant No. 1 vide rent note Ex. 1. Therefore, decision on this point does not call for any interference in this appeal.