Usha Mehra ( 1 ) BY this application the plaintiff wants a decree to be passed on the basis of the admission made by the deft. in their w/s. and replies filed to various interim applications. ( 2 ). Brief facts are that the plaintiff herein is the owner of property No. C-727, New Friends Colony. This property was leased out to the deft. No. 1. Tenancy has since been terminated by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the deft. carried out illegal and unauthorised construction of wall in the drawing room. It is further the case of the plaintiff that as per the terms of the lease deed and in particular Clause 10, the lessee was not to carry out any additions or alterations in the premises in question; nor permanent gadgets or fixtures without the written permission of the Lessor could be affixed. As per the terms of the lease deed, the tenant could not make any structural changes in the tenanted premises. Whereas as per defendant s own showing in the w/s. the deft. have made structural changes and have constructed a wall in the drawing room by closing the show case. The wall starts from the closed show case towards another newly constructed wall thereby facing each other at right angle. Therefore, in view of this breach of the terms of the lease deed as admitted by the deft. the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed forthwith. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that defts. have made these structural changes and have admitted the same. These are also apparent from the photographs filed on record which show newly constructed wall. Defts. in the w/s. have admited that no written consent was obtained for construction of this wall rather in reply to the plaintiff s application, deft. have admitted that the wall was constructed, by them in the drawing room, but tried to justify the same by saying it was permitted by this Court vide order dated 12. 10. 93. Hence according to plaintiff in view of this admission of the defts. made in reply to IA No. 101/93, decree should be passed forthwith. ( 4 ) NO formal reply has been filed to this application, Mr. Nayyar, appearing for the defts. 10. 93. Hence according to plaintiff in view of this admission of the defts. made in reply to IA No. 101/93, decree should be passed forthwith. ( 4 ) NO formal reply has been filed to this application, Mr. Nayyar, appearing for the defts. however, contended that this application is not maintainable because the plaintiff in the plaint has admitted that the wall in the drawing room was in existence when the suit was filed. Therefore, there is no question of wall being constructed subsequently. He further, contended that the deft. on 12. 10. 93 informed the Court that he was not pressing his prayer mentioned at serial (d) of para 3 of the I. A. No. 8051/93. This was with regard to installation of air conditioner and for making a hole in the wall. During the course of arguments inia. No. 8051/93itwasmade clear that the wall was in existence only the hole was to be bored in the wall. This prayer was in fact not pressed. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. Anil Mauria for the plaintiff and Mr. Rajiv Nayyar for defendants. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that in para ll (i) of the plaint the plaintiff averred that the deft. has already constructed wall illegally thereby altering the position at site. It has been averred that "l" shape brick wall marked AI, A2 and A3 as shown blue colour in the site plan running in the dinningcum-living room had been constructed with door at point x ". In para 1 l (ii) of the plaint it has been mentioned that the deft. have removed the show case/almirah at point XI from the drawing room and have set up material to construct a wall there. Defts. in their w/s. in reply to paras 11 (i and ii) have denied to have undertaken any construction work nor have taken up any construction activity much less of a massanory nature. Deft. denied having made any structural changes or alterations undertaken or intended to be undertaken by the deft. Prom these averments in the w/s. the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the deft. has not carried out any changes in the drawing room. If these averments are accepted, then of course this application is liable to be rejected. But the matter does not rest here. Prom these averments in the w/s. the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the deft. has not carried out any changes in the drawing room. If these averments are accepted, then of course this application is liable to be rejected. But the matter does not rest here. In the preliminary objections of the w/s. the deft. has admitted that as per the terms of the lease deed he could not carry out any construction activity pursuance to which there could be any structural change or alterations in the existing structure of the building That is the reason that in the w/s. in preliminary objection No. 1 the deft. specifically stated that only repair work was carried out by him with the consent of the plaintiff which consisted of plastering of walls, replacement of tiles, repairs of windows, minor adjustment in the drawing room. The open court yard allowed water entering the bedrooms, therefore, in order to protect the bed room temparary asbestos sheets were to be placed in the open court yard. Repair work in the bed room involving no structural changes i. e. replacing the old damaged decayed and/or broken items with new one. It was further contended that the deft. did not intend to undertake any repair work which would in any way involve the structural changes in the suit premises. Further undertaking was given by defts. in preliminary objection No. 1 that they have not undertaken any repair work which was in violation of the Building Bye-laws or in deviation and/or in variance to the sanctioned plan drawings etc. This undertaking given by defts. in the w/s. is an admission that the defendants had not carried out any structural changes in the suit premises. But the perusal of the order dated 12. 10 93 shows that defendants gave up the prayer mentioned at serial No. (d) of para 3 of the application bearing I. A. No. 8051/93. The said para 3 (d) reads :. " (D) Making of a hole to enabling the establishment of an air conditioner and placing a wall to enable the utilisation of the drawing room as drawing-cum-dining room. " ( 6 ) THEREFORE, having given up this prayer it would mean that no wall was to be constructed by the defts. The said para 3 (d) reads :. " (D) Making of a hole to enabling the establishment of an air conditioner and placing a wall to enable the utilisation of the drawing room as drawing-cum-dining room. " ( 6 ) THEREFORE, having given up this prayer it would mean that no wall was to be constructed by the defts. for the utilisation of the air conditioner in the drawing-cum-dining rooms But the photographs which have been placed on record as well as the report of the local commissioner shows that the defts. have closed one of the show case in the, living-cum- dining room with massanory work. Similarly, as per defts. own admission they have constructed a wall in living-cum-dining room starting from kitchen end. They have also constructed a new entrance which has been provided between two newly constructed walls. Breaking and removing of windows in the kitchen is also admitted. So far as other aspect of the matter i. e. with regard to holding the building material and replacing the windows are concerned that would not amount to structural changes. But the construction of wall in the living-cum-dining room with massanory work, to my mind, would amount to structural changes in the suit premises which as per defts. own admission was not with the consent of the plaintiff. It is defendant s own case that they constructed this wall dividing the drawing room as drawing-cum-dining room. To the same effect is the report of the local commissioner. These changes apparently amount to structural changes, therefore, are in violation of the terms of the lease deed. ( 7 ) IN view of the fact that defts. admitted structural changes having made in the drawing- cum-dining room without the consent of the plaintiff, this application is liable to be accepted. Accordingly, directions are given to the defts. to remove the said wall constructed in the drawing-cum-dining room and restore the status quo ante as per the sanctioned plan.