Mr. P. K. Bahri. J. ( 1 ) THE case had been on Board last month as wellas in this week, but no one appeared on behalf of the respondent to assistthe Court in deciding this case. Mr. Seth informs that he had contactedsh. K. K. Sharma, Advocate, whose power of attorney appears on the recordof this case, twice in this week, but he has told him that he was notappearing in this case. ( 2 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16/03/1974 of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, by which had allowed the appeal andhad granted mandatory injunction requring the appellant to demolish theroom existing on the second floor of the property in question and had alsogranted perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from making anypermanent construction in the property in question a. nd had left the partiesto bear their own cost. ( 3 ) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the property bearing Municipalno. 3591-3594, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, is owned by the respondent andinitially in the year 1956 he had let out the ground floor which comprisesof a shop at a rental of Rs. 34. 37 paise to the appellant and later on in theyear 1959 had let out the first floor and the second floor of the sameproperty to the appellant at a rental of Rs. 45. 88 paisa. The respondent/plaintiff had brought a suit seeking mandatory injunction, requiring theappellant/defendant to remove the illegal construction made by him, shownin red colour in the plan attatched with the plaint, so that the building isbrought to its original position when it was let out and also soughtperpetual injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from making anyaddition, alteration or variation in the super structure in any manner. ( 4 ) IT was pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that the appellantdefendant had covered a portion of the open space on the top floor byconstructing a cemented room on the said floor, which is shown in red colourin the plan. I need not refer to other pleas taken in the plaint because boththe Courts below have given a finding that other additions and alterations,particularly the stair case, which was constructed from the ground floor tothe first floor, and the covering of the verandah on the first floor, have notin any manner damaged the property or has violated any terms of thetenancy. No relief was granted to the respondent with regard to his prayerfor demolishing any structure on the ground floor or the first floor. ( 5 ) THE short question which arises for decision in this appeal iswhether the appellate Court was right in giving the said two directions to theplaintiff, regarding demolition of the construction on the second floor andgranting prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellant from making anyadditions and alterations in the property in question. ( 6 ) AT the time the first floor and the second floor premises wereletout. it appears that a writing was executed by the respondent/plaintiffwhich is Ex. D-l The respondent/plaintiff had in his statement, made incourt, admitted his signatures on the said document. The two Courts belowhave also given a finding of fact that this writing was given by therespondent/plaintiff. By this writing, the respondent/plaintiff had permittedthe anpellant/defendant to carry out additions and alterations in the demisedpremises at his own cost to which the respondent/plaintiff had no objection. ( 7 ) THE case set up by the appellant/defendant in the writtenstatement with regard to the structure on the top floor was that there existeda wooden tin shed on the second floor even from the time of previous tenantuttam Prakash Bansal and the woolen walls of the same had torn out andhe had replaced those wooden walls with the brick walls and the said structurehas the tin roof. ( 8 ) IN the replication beside reiterating that new structure has beenconstructed on the second floor, the plaintiff/respondent did not specificallydeny that super structure had a tin roof on it. ( 9 ) THE first appellate Court has given a finding that although therespondent/plaintiff had permitted the tenant to carry out addition andalterations in the demised premises, hut it opined that such additions andalterations could have been carried out at one time and should not have beencarried out later on at any time. This interpretation of the first appellatecourt being given to the permission granted by the landlord/respondentappears to be not in consonance with the law. The aforesaid documentex. D-l does not put any limitation on the right granted to the appellant thathe should carry out additions and alterations only at one time and that alsowithin a short time of granting of permission and not at any later time andfrequently. The aforesaid documentex. D-l does not put any limitation on the right granted to the appellant thathe should carry out additions and alterations only at one time and that alsowithin a short time of granting of permission and not at any later time andfrequently. The appellant/tenant obviously on the basis of this writing has anabsolute right to carry out additions or alterations in the structure which donot cause any substantial damage to the property in question and they shouldnormally he not in violation of any laws, ( 10 ) IT is not the case of the respondent/plaintiff set-up in the plaintthat the structure constructed on tlie second floor was in violation of anymunicipal laws. However, in evidence, a witness from the Corporation Satishchand, Public Witness 6 was examined, who deposed that there existed some unauthorised construction in the building inasmuch as that there was one courtyardon the first floor which has been covered and that there was unauthorisedconstruction made on the first floor and that unauthorised construction hadfallen. He admitted that he had not brought the records or the relevant files. So, it is not understood how the oral statement could he given by himregarding unauthorised construction having been made on the second floor. It is not shown that a structure having a root of tin shed could be deemed tobe any permanent construction which could be treated as in violation ofmunicipal laws. ( 11 ) THE appellant had examined the previous tenant namely Uttamprakash Bansal as Public Witness 5 who deposed that he was the tenant in the saidpremises and at the time of his tenancy, he had constructed the wooden tinshed on the second floor. The Trial Court had believed the testimony of thewitness and the first appellate Court had not given any contrary finding in thisregard. So, as the facts now emerge, it is obvious that on the second floor,there existed a wooden structure which had a roof of tin sheets andappellants, on the basis of the permission granted by the respondent/plaintiff,had changed the wooden walls into brick walls but the roof of the same stillcontinues to be of the tin sheets. So, it cannot be said that appellant/defendant had made any structure which could have damaged the building. So, it cannot be said that appellant/defendant had made any structure which could have damaged the building. Theconversion of a wooden tin shed into a tin shed of brick walls does not, in myopinion, violate any terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties anddoes not appear to be in violation of any bye-laws of the Municipalcorporation. Even if there was any unauthorised construction against thebye-laws of the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Corporation can takeany steps in accordance with law in respect of the said structure. It was nota fit case for exercise of discretion in favour of the respondent/plaintiff forgranting him any mandatory or perpetual injunction, as prayed by him. I allow the appeal and set inside the judgment of the Senior Sub-Judgeand restore the judgment of the trial Court leaving the parties to bear theircosts throughout.