GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal by the defendants has arisen out of the following facts :-
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent instituted a civil suit No. 188/1979 on 13. 7. 1979 for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that both the defendants (respectively father and son) are the tenants of the plaintiff respectively in shops No. 2 & 3 on monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. Both of them carry on restaurant in the suit shops. Eviction was sought on the ground of material alterations made by the defendants without consent of the plaintiff. In their joint written statement having admitted tenancy, the details of alterations alleged in the plaint have been denied. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as five issues were framed. Evidence was recorded and vide judgment dated 13. 9. 1983 learned Additional Munsif, Sikar came to this conclusion that the plaintiff though failed to prove opening of any door in the common wall between two shops, proved remaining material alterations, hence decreed the suit for eviction. Both the plaintiff as well as the defendants preferred the first appeal and the cross objections respectively. Learned Additional District Judge, Sikar vide impugned judgment dated 25. 3. 1987 while allowing the cross objections dismissed the appeal and thus affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction. Hence, this second appeal. On 13. 7. 1987 following substantial questions of law were framed :- (i) Whether u/s 13 (c) it is necessary to decide that the premises has materially been altered in a way which is likely to be diminish the value thereof ? (ii) Whether clause 13 (c) applies in the case of material alteration increasing the value of the property or not ? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the alterations made can be said to be the material alteration or not taking into consideration the rent of the appellants ?
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) provides that when the tenant has without the permission of the landlord 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, he would be liable to eviction. A perusal of these provisions shows that two grounds have been provided for eviction i. e. (i) material alterations in the premises and (ii) any such alteration which is likely to diminish the value of the premises. In view of these provisions it is not necessary to prove that the material alterations should diminish the value of the property. Even if by any alteration the value of the property is increased, the ground of eviction would not go away if such alteration is material in the opinion of the court and such alteration was made by the tenant without the permission of the landlord. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not seriously argue the questions No. 1 and 2 as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the questions No. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly that it is not necessary under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act to prove that the material alterations should be such which are likely to diminish or increase the value of the premises. Now comes the third question. As per paras 3 & 4 of the plaint, the following alterations were made in both the shops :- (i) that the defendant No. 1 opened a door of 6ft. x 3 1/2 ft. by breaking the common wall in between the two shops; (ii) that both the defendants converted Varandah into a room in front of both the shops and a tin-shed was fixed in front of the Varandah; (iii) that the defendant No. 1 opened a new door of 6ft. x 3 1/2 ft. in southern side wall of the shop; (iv) that both the defendants by breaking the southern wall of both the shops fixed two exhaust fans. It was also pleaded that these additions and alterations amount to material alterations and all this work was done without the permission of the plaintiff. ;