Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal filed by the plaintiff -appellant/landlord is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.05.1992 passed by the first appellate court of learned Civil Judge, Banswara in Civil Appeal No. 07/1991 "Bhanwar Singh Vs. Rajeev" reversing the judgment and eviction decree dated 28.01.1991 passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banswara in Civil Suit No. 83/1986 -Shri Rajeev Vs. Shri Bhanwarsingh, decreeing the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff -appellant/landlord in respect of the suit shop in question situated at Mahatma Gandhi Chikitsalaya, Bansawa City on the grounds of default in payment of rent and material alterations in the shop without the consent of the landlord.
(2.) THE relevant findings of the learned courts below are quoted below for ready reference: - "order dated 28.01.1991 of the learned trial court: - order dated 27.05.1992 of the learned appellate court: - The learned counsel for the plaintiff -appellant/landlord, Mr. Manish Shishodia submits that the learned appellate court has erred in law in holding that so far as alterations effected by the defendant by way of lowering the floor of the suit premises by about 2 & 1/2 feet, raising a platform outside and inside the premises to run Paan Shop therein and reducing the height of the door/shutter to five feet, which was earlier six feet are concerned they do constitute material alteration in the suit premises. All these alterations have been effected by the defendant -tenant in the suit premises without the permission of the plaintiff and they necessarily change the form of the accommodation and constitute material alterations as rightly held by the learned trial court. The finding of the learned trial court was wholly based on the relevant material available on record and the evidence of the parties. He therefore, submits that the learned appellate court has erred in law in reversing the finding of the learned trial court on the issue, as the said alterations in the suit shop in question have been admittedly effected by the defendant. They have substantially changed the form and are in the nature of permanent construction and as such the learned appellate court erred in law in holding that the alterations are not material alterations, but are of temporary nature. The construction has resulted in permanent changes in the suit premises in question affecting the form and structure of the building and the same cannot be easily removed. Therefore, under these circumstances, the construction and/or alteration came within the expressing 'material alteration' as rightly held by the learned trial court. About default in payment of rent, Mr. Manish Shishodia submitted that no rent whatsoever has been paid by the tenant ever since the filing of suit and hence, multiple defaults have taken place. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ranchod Mal & Anr. vs. Govind Prasad & Ors. - : 2012 (2) RCJ 231 (Raj.) and Prakash Chand & Ors. vs. Firm Pohap Singh Kishan Sahai & Ors. - : 2006 (4) RLW 2763.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsels Mr. Aript Bhoot and Ms. Arpita Bhoot appearing for the defendant -respondent/tenant have supported the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court decreeing the suit for eviction in favour of the plaintiff -appellant/landlord. In support of his submissions, Mr. Arpit Bhoot relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Shyamlal Vs. Ramdeo Kolyawat (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 102/1998 -decided on 22.09.2015);