KESAR DAS Vs. HARISH CHANDRA VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above appeal a caveat had been filed on behalf of the respondent under rule 159 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. The counsel for both the parties had agreed to argue the appeal itself. The record of the case was, therefore, called and both the learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.

(2.) THE plaintiff landlord filed a suit against the defendant-tenant for eviction of certain premises situate at Ladpura Kota. THE only ground on which the plaintiff landlord has sought eviction is of material alteration in the premises as contained in sec. 13 (l) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1959, (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). It was alleged in the plaint that in January, 1973, the defendant tenant made the following material alterations in the suit premises; (i) the back wall and the two side walls of one 'kelu Posh' room were raised; (ii) the 'kelu Posh' roof of the room was removed and it has been replaced with cement sheets; (iii) formerly the slope of the roof of the 'kelu Posh' room was on both the sides i. e. on the northern and southern side but now it has been totally changed and the entire slope of the roof has been made on the northern side; (iv) the door of the room in the southern wall has been raised after demolition.

(3.) THUS in a suit based on material alterations the Court has first to record a finding about the actual construction made by the tenant and thereafter has to form an opinion as to whether these constructions have materially altered the premises. The expression 'materially altered' finds place in section 13 (1) (c) of the Act. Its meaning has to be ascertained and then the Court has to see whether the constructions made amount to materia! alterations within the meaning of the Act. This will, in my opinion, be a finding of law.