JUDGMENT 1. - This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 11.11.82 allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondents-Rajendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar, brought for eviction of the appellant, on the ground that the latter had made material alteration in the premises let out to him by the respondents. The material alteration which was alleged by the respondents to have been carried out by the appellant was that the appellant has put a shutter in the verandah which has damaged the shape and use of the building. There was, according to the plaintiff-respondents, a Almirah. The appellant by putting a shutter has rendered the Almirah into dis-use. The defendant-appellant admitted that he had put a shutter in the verandah as alleged by the plaintiff-respondents but denied that the same had resulted in material alteration of the premises let out to him. According to him, shutter is of a temporary nature and if it is not to be treated as of a temporary nature it should be removed without causing any damage to the premises let out to him by the respondents. 2. Having heard counsel for the parties, I find that the trial court dismissed the suit upholding the plea of the defendant appellant but in the appeal the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the lower appellate court by finding that putting of the shutter had caused material alteration to the verandah let out to the appellant decreed the suit, as a result whereof, the appellant became liable to be evicted. 3. In this second appeal, the question raised by the defendant appellant's counsel was that the lower appellate court has erred in incorrectly holding that the putting of the shutter resulted in damaging the structure of the building as a result whereof, he was liable to be evicted. 3. In this second appeal, the question raised by the defendant appellant's counsel was that the lower appellate court has erred in incorrectly holding that the putting of the shutter resulted in damaging the structure of the building as a result whereof, he was liable to be evicted. Section 13 (1) (c) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, which is a clause appealing the entitlement of the plaintiff to bring a suit for eviction, reads as under "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied That 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." 4. In my opinion, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents was not right in arguing that the nature and character of damage or alteration of the building has resulted in conferring upon him the right given by Section 13 (1) (c) of the said Act. The argument of the appellant is supported by a decision of Supreme Court in Omprakash Vs. Amarsingh (1987) 10 Report (SC) 10-62 . 5. In my view, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is set aside. The decree of the trial court is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal accepted. *******