MAHANT PRAHLADDAS CHELA MAHANT YUKTIRAM Vs. DEVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff/landlord has filed the present second appeal (CSA No. 133/2001 - Mahant Prahladdass v. Devi Singh) in this Court on 20.04.2001 aggrieved by reversal of findings by the learned first appellate court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, (Presiding Officer Sh. Umakant Agarwal) and refusing to grant eviction decree against the defendant/tenant vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.02.2001 allowing defendant's First Appeal No. 55/2000 - Devi Singh v. Mahant Prahladdas, in respect of suit premises, a residential house situated near "Geeta -Bhawan", Jodhpur. The rented premises were one room and one kitchen only with an open land ("Bara"). The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jodhpur ('trial court', hereinafter) granted eviction decree in favour of plaintiff/appellant vide judgment and decree dated 21.08.2000 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 56/1998 -Mahant Prahladdas Chela Mahant Yuktiram v. Devi Singh on the ground of material alteration in the suit property.

(2.) THE ground set up by the plaintiff/appellant for eviction under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') before the learned courts below was material alterations made in the suit premises by the defendant/tenant without the permission and consent of the plaintiff/landlord and thereby also causing nuisance by encroaching upon the open land belonging to the plaintiff/landlord. The relevant findings of the learned trial court on Issue No. 1 regarding material alteration in the suit premises, is quoted herein below: - - The defendant/tenant being aggrieved by the judgment and eviction decree granted by the learned trial court preferred first appeal and the learned lower appellate court though concurred with the findings with respect to the material alteration of the learned trial court, however, vide the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2001 refused to grant the eviction decree in favour of plaintiff/appellant. The learned lower appellate court found that the construction of tin shed on the open land belonging to plaintiff was of temporary nature, and therefore, it did not fall within the definition of 'material alteration' as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act of 1950. The relevant findings of the learned first appellate court below reads as infra: - -

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned first appellate court, the appellant/plaintiff/landlord has preferred this second appeal. The present second appeal was admitted by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 17.03.2004, and the question of law framed is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - -