S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.)THIS appeal raises a very important and interesting question of law in regard to interpretation of Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No XVII of 1950) (for short 'the Act' hereafter ).
(2.)THE facts leading to filing this appeal may briefly be recounted here: THE plaintiff-appellant (landlord) instituted a suit for ejectment against the defendant-respondents in the Court of Munsif, Hanumangarh on January 6,. 1965 in respect of a shop situate in Bazar, Hanumangarh junction, described in para 1 of the plaint. THE ejectment was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the defendants have, without the permission of the landlord, made construction which has materially altered the premises (shop ). Para 4 of the plaint contains this ground for ejectment which is as under: *** THE defendant contested the suit. It regard to material alteration, it was stated that they had not done any material alteration in the shop, which was taken on rent by them from the plaintiff.
The learned Munsif, framed necessary issues and recorded evidence of the parties. I am concerned with issue No. 3 in this appeal, which, when translated into English, reads as under: " (3) Whether defendant No. 2 has done material alteration in the shop in dispute as detailed in para 4 of the plaint, and, therefore, the defendants are liable to be evicted?" After trial, the learned Civil Judge, by his judgment dated August 29, 1969, in view of the finding recorded regarding issue No. 3, decreed the suit for ejectment. Dissatisfied with the 'judgment and decree, the defendants went in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge granting ejectment vide his judgment dated August 18, 1970. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court.

I have heard Mr. H. M. Parakh for the plaintiff-appellant and Mr. Rajendra Mehta for the defendant-respondents and have gone through the record of the case.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the defendants had not made any construction in the premises (shop in suit) and as as such it has not been materially altered. In other words, the finding on issue No. 3 was challenged. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Mehta supported the judgment of the Additional District Judge and contended that as the alleged construction was not made in the shop in suit itself, the plaintiff is not entitled to eject the defendants under Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Act.

I have bestowed my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.)BEFORE I proceed to examine them, I consider it necessary to state the findings of the learned Civil Judge in this regard. He found that when Rame-shwarlal got the land, in front of the shop allotted from the Municipality and constructed the room on this land, there remains no other way for going into the shop and as such the defendants had made material alteration in the demised shop and as so on account of this, the defendants have rendered themselves liable to eviction under Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Act. The Additional District Judge held that the defendants have not made any construction in the shop in suit and, therefore, it cannot be said that it has been materially altered. In these circumstances, the question that crops up for determination is whether the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge that in order to entitle the plaintiff (Landlord) to evict the defendants (tenants) from the premises, the construction complained of should have been made in the premises let out to the latter resulting in its material alteration, is correct ?
I may read the relevant portion of S. 13 (1) of the Act: " Section13. Eviction of tenants (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree of otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) that the tenant has without the permission of the land lord 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; or. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " It is clear from clause (c) of S. 13 (1) that three conditions have to be satisfied before passing a decree for eviction on the ground mentioned in it and these are: (1) that the defendant has made construction or permitted to be made: (ii) that the construction has been made without permission of the landlord : and (iii) that such construction has materially altered the premises or such construction is likely to diminish the value of the premises. Section l3 (l) (c) contains the words "without the permission of the landlord or permitted to be made". So permission for construction resulting in material alteration of the premises or likely to diminish the value thereof, which is contemplated under Section 13 (1) (c) is of the landlord. Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act (No. IV of 1882) (in short the Act of 1882') deals with rights and liabilities of lessor and lease. Cl. (p) under the head (g) Rights and Liabilities of the Leasee, reads as under: " he must not, without the leaser's consent, erect on the property any permanent structure, except for agricultural purposes. " According to Mr. Parakh, the words "such construction" need not be confined to construction in the demised premises, for, clause (c) of S. 13 (1) is conspicuously silent as the words "such construction" are not preceded by the words "in the premises". According to the learned counsel for the appellant if any construction is made outside the premises taken on rent and such construction, if in the opinion of the Court has materially altered the premises or is likely to diminish the value thereof, if it has been made without permission of the landlord, the tenant is liable to be evicted. Strong reliance was placed on Sita Ram Sharan vs. Johri Mal (1) in which, amongst others, Manmohandas Shah vs. Bishnu Das (2) was considered.

What is 'material alteration' has been explained in a number of cases of this Court. Suffice it to mention Hemara Radio and General Industries Co. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (3), Bansidhar vs. Hindu Anatha Ashram (4) and Sampat Raj vs. Bhagwatilal (5), which were cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and Manmohan Das's case (2 ).