JUDGMENT 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 : 3. 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. 4. 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: " ;g izfroknh us mDr fdjk;k fpV~Bh dh 'krksZa dh vogsyuk dh gS vkSj f[kykQ fdjk;k fpV~Bh dk;Z fd;k gSA izfroknh us oknh dh fcuk Lohd`fr nqdku ds vUnj dh rjQ ,d tnksn r;k njoktk pkSd dh rjQ QksM+ fn;k gS tks mls QksM+us dk vf/kdkj ugh gSA o vkSj Hkh ,fM+'kuy vkyV~s'ku fd, gS tks izfroknh dks djus dk dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj ugh gSA " 5. 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 . 6. 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 . 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent has vehemently submitted that there is no substantial question of law in this appeal and the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. He has further submitted that both the courts below have decided the case in a correct perspective and, therefore, no interference should be made. He has placed reliance on Khinav Ram v. Lakhi Prasad 1964 RLW 213 and Manmohandas v. Bishundas, AIR 1967 SC 643 and Kishanlal v. Rambaboo 1971 Rent Control Journal 95 . 7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the defendant-tenant-appellant has removed a Pardi wall of bricks on the back portion of the shop so as to make an entry from behind the shop to his residential portion which is also in his tenancy. At the stage of evidence, he has tried to produce evidence that this was done with the permission of the landlord but both the Courts below have comet to a finding that defendant-appellant had not taken any permission from the landlord for removing the wall and in second appeal, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact based on appreciation evidence and hold that tenant had not taken permission of the landlords for removing the Pardi wall. Para 4 of the plaint which has been quoted above shows that the complaint of the plaintiff was that the defendant has broken open door inside the wall in contravention of the terms of of the rent note and that he has also made some additions and alterations for which the defendant was not entitled. The plaint was later on amended and paragraph 4A was added and in that that paragraph, the plaintiff has specified some other constructions, which according to him amount to material alterations of the premises. The plaint was later on amended and paragraph 4A was added and in that that paragraph, the plaintiff has specified some other constructions, which according to him amount to material alterations of the premises. An issue was framed on the allegations made in para 4A, but both the courts below have rejected the contention of the plaintiff in this regard, and I am also not called upon to give any finding in this respect. The main crux of the plaintiff in para 4 was that he has opened the gate in contravention of the conditions of the rent note which was quoted in the plaint in para 3, and the same runs as under: " fcuk Lohd`fr ds rksM+ QksM+ ugha djsaxsA " 8. But violation of any condition of the rent note is not a ground for eviction under the Rent Act. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manchandas's case (supra) while interpreting a similar provision in the U.P. Rent Control Act has observed as under: "Without attempting to lay down any general definition as to what material alteration means, as such a question would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, the alterations in the present case must mean material alterations as the construction carried out by the respondent had the effect of altering the form and structure of the accommodation. The expression 'material alterations' in its ordinary meaning would mean important alterations, such as those which materially or substantially change the front or the structure of the premises." 10. Our High Court in Khinav Ram's case (supra) has observed as under: "The question whether any material alteration has been made in the premises is a question of fact in each case depending upon the nature of the premises and nature, extent and effect of the constructions made therein. The alteration should be of structural nature and not merely of decorative nature. Fixing a door to a room or to a garage by a tenant may not amount to material alteration within the meaning of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act but same will not be the case when an open Verandah is covered into a closed room by fixing doors on the open portion. The character and shape of the premises in the former case remain unchanged while in the latter case the form and structure of the premises is changed." 11. The character and shape of the premises in the former case remain unchanged while in the latter case the form and structure of the premises is changed." 11. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on Kishanlal's case (supra) wherein the Allahabad High Court had held that even though the pulling down of a partition wall between two shops, form of the structure might not have been changed still the structure of the accommodation involved in the case has undergone an important change. By demolishing the partition wall the tenant altered two different accommodations and converted them into one accommodation. Any change made in an accommodation which makes the accommodation lose its original identity and convert it into a different accommodation, would amount to a material alteration within the meaning of Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947". 12. On the other hand, our High Court in Raghunath's case (supra) has held that making of a Pardi wall does not materially alter the suit premises and the question whether the making of a Pardi wall alters the premises materially, is a question of law. In the present case, it has come in evidence that the defendant has only removed the 'Tati' i.e., brick wall by which the gate is opened towards the back of the shop. The defendant appellant has not made any fresh constructions and in my opinion, removing of a 'Tati', which is a brick Pardi wall, so as to open the gate, does not amount to making construction which materially alters the premises. The gate was there in existence prior before the premises were given on rent to the defendant, but the gate had been closed by a Pardi wall (Tati) and the defendant has only removed that Pardi wall so as to restore the earlier gate which was there in existence. This High Court again in Keshavdas's case (supra) has observed that whether the constructions made extend to material alteration within the meaning of the Rent Control Act, is a finding of law. 13. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of both the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal allowed. *******