SAMPATRAJ Vs. BHAGWATILAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction from a shop.

(2.) The suit was based on three grounds, namely, (1) defaults in payment of rent, (2) reasonable and bonafide necessity and (3) material alterations in the suit premises. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff-respondents, the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur, decreed the suit on two grounds, firstly, that the suit shop was required by the plaintiffs reasonably and bonafide for running a restaurant and secondly, that the tenant has made material alterations within the meaning of Section 13(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Hence this appeal by the tenant.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge recorded the finding that the tenant made the following alterations in the demised shop without the permission of the plaintiffs : (i) He has closed the door (window) in the western wall of the disputed shop, (ii) he has removed the iron bars of the window on the eastern wall and fixed the glass window instead of it, (iii) he has broken the floor of the shop and (iv) he has broken the todas of the pillars of the shop. The learned Additional District Judge then observed : "These constructions cannot be said to be in the nature of fittings or fixtures made by the tenant for its ordinary purpose. The other two alterations, that is, fixing of the show-cause by removing the iron bars and breaking of the floor may at the best be said to be not material alterations, but the alterations made by the defendant in the disputed shop by which he has closed the window in the western wall and he has broken the todas of the plaintiffs' shop amounts to material alterations made in the rented shop, and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to get eviction on this ground also as defined in clause (c) of Section 13(1) of the Act."