SURENDRA NATH BHARGAVA,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Bhilwara, confirming the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, Bhilwara according the suit of the plaintiff -respondent for ejectment.
(2.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated, are as follows : Plaintiff -respondents filed a suit for rent and ejectment against the appellant -defendant on several grounds. The suit was contented by the appellant and after framing number of issues and recording the evidence, and trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the tenant had, without the permission of the landlord made such constructions which have materially altered the premises as mentioned in Section 13(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The learned District Judge also found that the defendant had made constructions without the permission of the landlord which has materially altered the premises and hence, confirmed the decree. Hence, this appeal, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and has also perused the record of the case. Plaintiff in his plaint in para 4 has asserted that the defendant in violation of the conditions of the rent note has opened a new gate towards the chowk by removing the Tati. Para 4 of the plaint runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that mere violation of any condition of the rent note is not a ground of eviction. He has further submitted that the plaintiff in his plaint no where mentioned that the opening of a gate amounts to material alteration. He has further submitted that mere removal of Tati i.e. a Pardi wall of brick does not amount to making construction so as to materially alter the premises and he has placed reliance on Raghunath Singh v. Balabux 1975 WLN 427 and Kesardas v. Harish Chandra Vyas 1979 RLW 201.;