JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This is a defendant's appeal directed against judgment and decree of Sri R. K. Sinha, learned District Judge, Mirzapur dated 20-8-1974 arising out of Original Suit No. 620 of 1968 of the Court of Munsif, Mirzapur. Learned Munsif dismissed the suit of plaintiffs-landlords for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages on 21-9-1971. Learned Munsif found that the arrears of rent were not due as these have been validly deposited by the tenant-appellant under S. 7-C of U. P. Act III of 1947 (U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act). 2. Learned Munsif also found that the offending alterations relied upon by the landlords as the basis of their claim for eviction were not material alterations and could not attract S. 3(1 )(c) of U.P. Act No. Ill of 1947. 3. Learned lower appellate Court found that the alterations were material and entitled the landlords to successfully sue the tenant in ejectment under S. 3(l)(c) of the said Act. In the result, the suit of respondents for eviction was decreed with costs. 4. Aggrieved by that decision, tenant has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard learned Advocates for parties at length and perused the record. 6. It appears that it is an old tenancy at the rate of Rs. 2-50 P. per month. It is a residential accommodation having two rooms as shown in Commissioner's map dated 15-11-1969 (paper No. 30-C/7). The eastern room opened towards north in a lane. It has no other door. 7. The western room, adjoining the same, had its entrance towards west. There was no door in the common wall of these two rooms which were separate. 8. Plaintiffs alleged that respondent has caused material alterations in the accommodation by closing the door of eastern room towards north. He has also opened another door in between the wall of these two rooms. Such door was not in existence earlier. 9. There was also some controversy about opening of two windows in the southern wall of both these rooms but that controversy was not pushed up as those windows were closed. 10. Appellant denied to have opened any window or any door in between the wall of two rooms. Such door was not in existence earlier. 9. There was also some controversy about opening of two windows in the southern wall of both these rooms but that controversy was not pushed up as those windows were closed. 10. Appellant denied to have opened any window or any door in between the wall of two rooms. However, he admitted to have closed the northern-door of the eastern room by bricks only in the interest of privacy as this lane was used by some persons visiting the liquor shop mentioned by the Commissioner in his report and map. 11. Parties adduced oral evidence. Trial Court found that appellant failed to prove the opening of a new door or window in the accommodation in suit. It further held that the closing of door did not constitute a material alteration in the accommodation. 12. Learned lower appellate Court found that the landlords proved that the two rooms, occupied by the tenant, were quite separate and there was no connecting door which has been opened by the tenant. 13. The two windows were opened by the tenant in the southern wall of these rooms but were later closed. 14. It was further proved that the wall blocking the norther door was raised after digging foundation; a portion of the same was made in mud and thereafter some bricks were placed. 15. Thus the closure of the northern door and the opening of the connecting door amounted to material alteration within the meaning of S. 3(i)(c) of the Act III of 1947. In the result, the claim for ejectment of landlords was allowed. 16. On behalf of appellant, it was pointed out that such alterations were not material alterations. In this connection, reliance was placed on Dr. Jai Gopal Gupta v. Budh Mai. 1969 All LJ 477, in which it was observed : "In the present case the tenant has not touched the house which was let to him. It remains as it was when it was let out to him. He has, however, added two rooms on a portion of the courtyard. These additions are a kitchen and at aloath-room. They appear to be necessary for the proper and convenient use of the house let out to him. They have no foundations, although they are built of pucca bricks and have been plastered with cement. Essentially they are of a temporary character. These additions are a kitchen and at aloath-room. They appear to be necessary for the proper and convenient use of the house let out to him. They have no foundations, although they are built of pucca bricks and have been plastered with cement. Essentially they are of a temporary character. They can be demolished at any time without causing any damage to the accommodation. Their temporary character is also evinced by the tenant's use of a side of a bed as a support for the roof of one of them. They also occupy only a small portion of the courtyard. It cannot be said that they have changed the front or the structure of the house let to the tenant. It is difficult to say on the facts of this case that the constructions made by the tenant have materially altered the accommodation." 17. It was further pointed out that whether the alteration was material or not was a mixed question of fact and law vide Lachmeshwar v. Manowar (1892) ILR 19 Cal 253 and Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, 1956 SCR 691 : ( AIR 1957 SC 49 ). He also relied on Sardar Bahadur Mathur v. Kali Prasad Gupta, 1961 All LJ 137. 18. Learned counsel for respondents relied upon Hukum Singh v. Raman Lal Agarwal, 1981 All Rent Cas 536 : (1981 All LJ 744). In that case, permanent partition wall between the two shops had been pulled down by the tenant and it was held that the effect of the removal of the wall was a structural change of the shops which amounted to important alteration which materially and substantially changed the front or the structure of the premises. 18-A. Learned counsel for the respondents further pointed out that appellant was held fast by the findings of fact recorded by the learned lower appellate Court. That finding is final not only about the alterations which have been made but also as to whether such alterations were material or not? 19. It appears that lower appellate Court as well as the learned Advocate for respondents mainly relied upon Manmohan Das Shah v. Bishun Das, AIR 1967 SC 643 where the meaning of expression 'material alterations' was explained. 20. It was pointed out that such alterations would mean important alterations which materially and substantially changed the front or structure of the premises. It appears that lower appellate Court as well as the learned Advocate for respondents mainly relied upon Manmohan Das Shah v. Bishun Das, AIR 1967 SC 643 where the meaning of expression 'material alterations' was explained. 20. It was pointed out that such alterations would mean important alterations which materially and substantially changed the front or structure of the premises. A perusal of the facts of that case would go to disclose that in that case there was an agreement of tenancy under which tenant was prohibited from making alterations in both the shops which were in his tenement. The tenant got removed the partition wall and arch by iron girders. 21. Thereafter, the tenant lowered the level of the ground-floor by about P/2 ft. by excavating the earth therefrom and replaced it by a new floor which lowered the (rent door; the tenant also fixed a larger door lowering correspondingly the height of the Chabutra so as to bring it on the level of the new door-step, the lowering of the base of the staircase entailing the addition of new steps thereto and cutting the plinth band on which the door originally rested so as to bring the entrance to the level of the new door. It was held that all these alterations were structural in nature which changed the front of the shop and the structure of the premises and entitled the landlords to maintain their suit for eviction without permission of the District Magistrate. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents also stressed before me that by closing northern door; tenant had closed the only exit of the room which opened towards lane in north and by opening connecting door in the partition wall, he has demolished the . partition wall. All these constructions and changes were material which could have attracted S. 3(i)(c) of the U. P. (Temporary) Rent Control and Eviction Act. He relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1972 All 317 , Sitaram Sharan v. Johri Mal. In that case a single storeyed shop was converted into double storey structure by constructing superstructure on the roof of the shop. It was held that such superstructure on the roof of the shop amounts to material alteration of the accommodation within the meaning of S. 3li)(c) of the Act. 23. I have carefully perused all these rulings. In that case a single storeyed shop was converted into double storey structure by constructing superstructure on the roof of the shop. It was held that such superstructure on the roof of the shop amounts to material alteration of the accommodation within the meaning of S. 3li)(c) of the Act. 23. I have carefully perused all these rulings. The simple point which falls to be considered in this appeal is whether the closure of northern door and opening of connecting door would amount material alteration in this case. As regards the closure of northern door, an explanation was offered by the tenant. He alleged that it had been blocked temporarily in the interest of privacy. The opening of connecting door inside the two rooms does not substantially change the front or structure of the premises. In King Emperor v. Babu Ram. AIR 1923 Oudh 35 (I), it was held "U. P. Municipal Act. S. 185 Alteration not material - No offence is committed. The raising of the plinth and the alterations made by the accused in the size, position or number of the doors or windows cannot be treated as material alterations in the original plan so as to affect the Municipal Board if the area built on does not exceed that entered in the sanctioned plan." 24. Learned trial Court rightly found that these alterations were simply for enjoyment of the accommodation in suit. These alterations did not materially or substantially change the front or structure of the premises. 25. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are restored. Plaintiffs suit, is dismissed with costs throughout.