- (1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of a shop.
(2.) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT had leased out his shop to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 13/ -. The suit for ejectment was based on the ground of defaults in payment of rent as also on the allegation that the defendant-tenant had made material alterations in the suit premises. It was alleged that the defendant had fixed a door in the open verandah of the shop and had thereby closed the outer portion of the shop. The defendant was further alleged to have made the 'kutcha' floor of the shop 'pucka' and also had plastered the walls which were 'kutcha'. The defendant admitted the fixation of the door, but asserted that it was so done with the consent of the plaintiff. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. Regarding the alterations he held that it was not correct that the alterations had been made by the defendant with the consent of the plaintiff. He then considered the question whether the alterations found to have been made by the defendant in the suit premises were within the mischief of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "act". The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the alterations made by the defendant in the suit premises were not mere repair work but they were material alterations within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act and as they were made without the consent, of the landlord, the defendant was liable to be ejected. The conclusions of the learned Munsif in his own words were as follows:-- "in the present case, what the defendant has carried out on the suit premises is not a mere repair work, the floor of the shop was "kuchha" which is now set with stone slabs. A new door has been fixed to the verandah. The defendant says thus about previous addition tc nqdku esus fdjk;k yh rc ojkumk [kqyk Fkk mlds njoktk ugh Fkk the condition of the walls, when the premises were let out to the defendant has been described thus Later the defendant says that he got the wall plastered. In my view, the above jobs certainly fall within the definition of material alterations. I therefore decide this issue in the affirmative. " In the result, the learned Munsif awarded a decree of ejectment in favour of the plaintiff. Rupees twenty-three as rent which were due upto 22-10-1963 were also ordered to be paid by the defendant.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif the defendant went up in appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Udaipur. The learned Civil Judge, by and large, agreed with the learned Munsif. He observed: "it is clear from the evidence that the outer portion of the suit premises was open, and by fixing up the door, the open verandah has been closed. This alteration, to my mind certainly falls within the ambit of section 13, Sub-section (i), Clause C of Premises (Control of Rent and eviction) Act, 1950". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "in the present case, defendant has not carried out mere repair work on the suit premises, but he had erected certain structure, in the shape of closing an open Verandah, which has materially altered the suit premises. The floor of the shop was 'kachha' which is now covered by stone slabs A new door has been fixed to the Verandah. Defendant has himself stated that. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . He has further stated that later on defendant got the wall plastered. These works, as stated above, certainly fall within, the definition of material alterations. I, therefore, concur with the finding of the trial Court on this issue". In the result, he dismissed the appeal.;