D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Applications under Sec. 29 (2) of the bombay Rent Act are proposed to be disposed of by common judgment because the two appeals from which these revisions arise were disposed of by the lower Appellate Court through a common judgment. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to these revisions are as under : the plaintiff respondent filed Suit No. 3394 of 1974 for eviction of the revisionist on four grounds. The first was that the tenant revisionst made structural alteration in the disputed shop without written permission of the landlord. The second was that in breach of the terms of tenancy the revisionist has made alteration in the suit premises. The third was that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months which was not paid by him within a month of service of notice of demand. The last was denial of landlords title by the tenant revisionist. ( 3 ) THE shop was let out to the revisionist by the landlords father on 26. 8. 1945 on monthly rent of Rs. 5/ -. In private partition the suit property fell in the share of the plaintiff and as such in the capacity of the landlord the plaintiff filed suit for eviction of the revisionist. Regarding first two grounds of raising alteration without written permission of the landlord and breach of terms of the tenancy, it was alleged that there was a rent note executed on 26. 8. 1945 in which it was mentioned that the tenant without written permission of the landlord cannot make any alteration in the suit shop and was bound to hand over possession of the shop to the landlord in the same condition in which it was let out. In brief the nature of alteration made by the revisionist in the shop consists of construction of ota (platform) over the land in front of the tenanted shop. Open land was not let out to the revisionist. The revisionist has only right of ingress and egress to the shop through this open land. The tenant also wanted to raise tin shed over the said platform. Further allegation was that the flooring of the shop was lowered and changed due to which water was likely to enter the shop. There was also allegation of lowering down of plinth level. The tenant also wanted to raise tin shed over the said platform. Further allegation was that the flooring of the shop was lowered and changed due to which water was likely to enter the shop. There was also allegation of lowering down of plinth level. Further allegation was that there were two doors in the shop. Back door was locked. Front as well as back doors were removed and replaced by big doors causing big cracks in front and back walls of the shop: An iron grill was also said to have been placed over one of the newly fitted doors. ( 4 ) THE next ground was tenants failure to pay arrears of rent from 1. 7. 1966 to 31. 5. 1974 which was not paid despite service of notice of demand. The last ground was taken after amending the plaint that the tenant revisionist had denied the title of the plaintiff landlord. ( 5 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant revisionist on the ground that notice was not valid and he raised dispute regarding standard rent and as such decree for eviction on grounds of arrears of rent could not be passed. He pleaded that open land in addition to shop was let out to him by plaintiffs father who filed previous Suit No. 2756/47 against the defendent treating him to be a tenant of the said open land. He further pleaded that he has no knowledge about partition in which the shop fell in the share of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he called upon the plaintiff to prove his title as landlord and he never denied the title of the landlord. It was denied that the defendant could not raised any alteration without written permission of the landlord. He pleaded that initially it was a kachcha floor made of earth which was changed to stone studded floor. After passage of time the floor again got damaged hence it was again repaired. It was denied that the floor of the shop was lowered or plinth was lowered. It was further pleaded that since the door was damaged by white ants it was got replaced. He pleaded that the payment of rent was made upto April, 1974, but he was not issued any receipt. After the receipt of notice he remitted rs. 475/- by money order on 15. 7. It was further pleaded that since the door was damaged by white ants it was got replaced. He pleaded that the payment of rent was made upto April, 1974, but he was not issued any receipt. After the receipt of notice he remitted rs. 475/- by money order on 15. 7. 1974 within one month from service of notice but money order was refused by the plaintiff respondent. Allegation regarding trespass over open land was denied and it was pleaded that the open land was also in his tenancy. It was thus pleaded that only requisite repairs to make the shop fit for use were carried out and no alteration or construction of permanent nature was carried out. 5a. Another Suit No. 2338/74 was filed by the landlord-respondent for injunction restraining the defendant-tenant from putting a tin shed over the platform constructed by the tenant on open land in front of the tenanted shop and for causin or making any structural alterations without written consent of the landlord in the disputed shop. ( 6 ) THIS suit was contested by the revisionist on similar ground, that open land was also in his tenancy and he has raised only platform of 6" height and he wanted to place tinshed and use open land in his tenancy. ( 7 ) THE Trial Court found that the revisionist made alterations in ;the disputed shop in breach of the term of the tenancy contained in the rent note. It however did not find that any permanent structure was riased by the tenant. It also did not find that the tenant denied title of the landlord. Likewise it also did not find any ground for passing decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Thus, the suit was decreed only on the ground that alterations were made in the shop and on the open land without written permission of the landlord which amounted to breach of the terms of the tenancy. ( 8 ) TWO Appeals were preferred against the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court which were dismissed. Accordingly, these two revisions were filed by the tenant. ( 9 ) THE findings of the two Courts below regarding arrears of rent and denial of title are concluded findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, hence no interference on these two findings is required. Accordingly, these two revisions were filed by the tenant. ( 9 ) THE findings of the two Courts below regarding arrears of rent and denial of title are concluded findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, hence no interference on these two findings is required. If the plea of the tenant was that he has no knowledge of partition amongst the brothers of the plaintiff and consequently showed ignorance whether the shop fell in the ownership of the plaintiff or not and called upon the plaintiff to satisfy him about the partition and his title it does not amount to denial of title of the landlord. A tenant is said to have denied title of the landlord when either he sets up his own title by denying the title of the landlord or after denying the title of the landlord sets up title of some other person in the property. Mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties does not amount to denial of title of the landlord. Likewise if the tenant was unaware of subsequent events and called upon the landlord to satisfy him about the above partition; he cannot be said to have denied the title of the landlord. The tenancy was granted by the plaintiffs father. As such it was for the plaintiff to show that he had sent intimation of partition to the tenant or had sent notice of attornment to the tenant. In the absence of such notice or information the tenant cannot be said to have denied the title of the landlord. Thus, on this score no error was committed by the two Courts below. ( 10 ) LIKEWISE no error was commuted by the two Courts below in refusing to pass decree of eviction on ground of arrears of rent. ( 11 ) SIMILARLY it was not the case where any permanent structure was raised by the tenant within the meaning of Sec. 13 (l) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. As such decree for eviction on this ground also could not be passed. ( 12 ) THE only point for the determination in the rent suit is whether the tenant made any alteration in the suit permises without written permission of the landlord. The nature of alteration has been discussed while narrating the facts of the case. As such decree for eviction on this ground also could not be passed. ( 12 ) THE only point for the determination in the rent suit is whether the tenant made any alteration in the suit permises without written permission of the landlord. The nature of alteration has been discussed while narrating the facts of the case. ( 13 ) THERE is dispute between the parties whether open land was also let out by the plaintiffs father to the defendant revisionist. However, rent note itself shows that only the shop was let out and not the open land The defendants contention to the contrary that in some earlier Suit No. 2756/47 filed by the plaintiffs father against him, he was treated to be the tenant of open land as well could not be established. Thus it is established that only shop was let out to the revisionist and not the open land. ( 14 ) THE case of the landlord is that open land was permitted to be used by the tenant only for the purposes of ingress and egress to the shop in question and for no other purpose. It was also found from the Commissioners report that platform (ota) had been constructed by the tenant in front of the shop in open land. However, this ota is only 6" in height and it is a nominal platform which hardly causes any hindrace to the landlord nor it is a case where other tenants have right of passage through this land and their rights of passage have been obstructed. Moreover, if the open land is not in the tenancy of the revisionist he cannot be said to have caused any alteration in the tenanted accommodation without written permission of the landlord. In the rent note the condition was that without written permission of the landlord the tenant cannot make any alteration in the suit shop (emphasis supplied) and was bound to hand over possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff-landlord in the same condition in which the same was let out to him. In the rent note the condition was that without written permission of the landlord the tenant cannot make any alteration in the suit shop (emphasis supplied) and was bound to hand over possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff-landlord in the same condition in which the same was let out to him. Thus, the restriction contained in this clause of the rent note is confined to alteration in the suit shop and not on the open land Hence, the construction of the platform in front of the shop cannot be said to be alteration in the suit shop and such alteration hardly required any permission of the landlord and if such construction was made it could not be a ground for tenants eviction. ( 15 ) COMING to the alteration in the suit shop the allegation that the plinth level has been lowered can hardly be appreciated. The plinth level cannot be lowered without demolition of the shop. It is a matter of common knowledge that at first plinth is constructed and then over the plinth, walls are constructed. As such the plinth could not be lowered without demolishing the wall. This allegation on the face of it does not appeal to reason hence it cannot be accepted on mere assertion of the landlord. Moreover, the report of the Commissioner does not show that the plinth level has been lowered. Hence this allegation remains unproved. ( 16 ) REGAIDING lowering of floor the tenant has denied the same. He has stated that originally the floor of the shop was made of mud which due to passage of time became unserviceable. Because tenancy was granted in the year 1945 just for a nominal sum of rs. 5/-, it is, not improbable that the floor of the shop might have been of mud. The tenant has admitted that subsequently he changed the floor with studded stones. By passage of time the said floor also got damaged and it had to be changed which was replaced and repaired. Thus, mere repair of floor does not amount to any material alteration or alteration of permanent nature. Moreover, on the plaintiffs own admission the floor has been repaired and changed. It is also admitted by the tenant that because the rear door was damaged by white ants so also front door, hence these doors were replaced by new doors. Thus, mere repair of floor does not amount to any material alteration or alteration of permanent nature. Moreover, on the plaintiffs own admission the floor has been repaired and changed. It is also admitted by the tenant that because the rear door was damaged by white ants so also front door, hence these doors were replaced by new doors. The construction of iron grill on one of the doors is also proved from the report of the Commissioner. Evidence on record, admision of the tenant and the report of the commissioner confirm these alterations. The question for consideration is whether these alteration could be made by the tenant in view of prohibition contained in the rent note. ( 17 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist contended that since the Courts below did not find any permanent structure having been raised in the suit shop it could not be said that minor alterations and repairs to keep the tenanted shop tenantable was a ground for tenants eviction. Mr. D. F. Amin contended that such alteration was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act nor inconsistent with the provisions of Sec. 13 ( 1 ) (b) of the Act. In my opinion, inconsistency is not to be determined with reference to Sec. 13 ( 1 ) (b) of the act. This section provides that save as otherwise provided in Sec. 23a, if the tenant has, without the landlords consent given in writing, erected on the premises any permanent structure, the landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of such permises. Since it is not a case of raising permanent structure, Sec. 13 (l) (b) is not attracted. It is however, to be seen whether such alteration amounts to breach of terms of tenancy within the meaning of Sec. 12 (1) of the Act. For this rent note has also to be kept in mind. ( 18 ) SECTION 12 (1) of the Act interalia provides that the landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any permises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the others conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act. Obviously in the rent note there was prohibition that the tenant cannot make any alteration in the suit shop without written permission of the landlord and shall hand over the shop in the same condition to the landlord in which it was let out. ( 19 ) SO far as the second portion is concerned, there is no breach of it in as much as the tenant can hand over possession of the shop in the same position. However, if the landlord wants to have possession of the shop without doors as the old doors became unserviceable due to damage caused by white aunts the tenants can very well remove these doors and hand over possession to the landlord provided he becomes entitled to recover its possession. Likewise the platform can also be removed. Iron grill is also not a permanent construction. It can be closed when the tenant is required to hand over possession to the landlord and such closure will not cause any damage to the wall of the suit shop. Repair in the floor of the shop has added to the value of the shop and since lowering of the floor level has not been established, possibility that rain water may enter the shop is altogether ruled out. If this is the situation then keeping in mind the test of removability it can be said that by removal of alterations the tenant can hand over possession of the shop to the landlord without causing any damage to the same. In such situation it would not be just and expedient to evict the tenant. ( 20 ) SO far as the rent note is concerned it should not be given a pedantic interpretation. On the other hand liberal interpretation of the rent note is to be made. Rent note is to be considered in the light of the fact that the tenancy was granted in the year 1945 and after passage of time damage to the doors and floor was natural especially when the original floor was made of mud. Wooden doors could have been damaged by white ants. However, minor alteration done by the tenant should not be included in the prohibition contaned in the rent note. Absolute prohibition in the rent note that in no case the tenant can make any alteration without written permission of the landlord would cause great hardship to the tenant. Wooden doors could have been damaged by white ants. However, minor alteration done by the tenant should not be included in the prohibition contaned in the rent note. Absolute prohibition in the rent note that in no case the tenant can make any alteration without written permission of the landlord would cause great hardship to the tenant. Learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention of Sec. 23 (2) of the Rent Act and argued that if the landlord fails to carry out repairs the tenant should have given written notice and then only he could have carried out repairs and could have adjusted the expenses from the rent. The contention may sound well but on scrutiny it is found that it is to cause great hardship to the tenant and would give premium to the unwilling landlord. If total restraint and absolute prohibition in the rent note is taken into account then its consequence would be that in no case the tenant would be able to carry out minor alterations and repairs in the suit shop. Supposing the tenant applies to the landlord to carry out alterations and the landlord refuses to grant permission or he sits tight over the request of the tenant then what will be the option left with the tenant. According to the learned Counsel for the revisionist the tenant would have taken recourse to Sec. 23 (2) of the Act but this does not result in any inconsistency with the lerms contained in the rent note and Sec. 23 (2) of the Act. Marginal note of Sec. 23 reads as landlords duty to keep permises in good repair. Section 23 (1) provides that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary by the tenant, every landlord shall be bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repair. Of course in the instant case there is no agreement to the contrary which had caste duty on the tenant to carry out tenantable repairs. Section 23 (1) provides that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary by the tenant, every landlord shall be bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repair. Of course in the instant case there is no agreement to the contrary which had caste duty on the tenant to carry out tenantable repairs. If it is the duty of the landlord to carry out tenantable repairs and he sits tight over the matter of course the tenant can take recourse to Sec. 23 (2) but that does not mean that failure of the tenant in taking recourse to Sec. 23 (2) of the Act amounts to breach of the conditions in the rent note nor such change and alterations would make the same inconsistent with the rent note and Sec. 23 (2) of the Act. It should also not be fogotten that the rent was Rs. 5/- p. m. only. Keeping in view the nature of repairs carried out by the tenant in the shop Rs. 5/- could not have been sufficient even for material what to say of labour charges. The tenant has not claimed adjustment of expenses incurred in repairs from the landlord. No landlord would be ready to carry out repairs in tenanted accommodation which fetches only Rs. 5/p. m. as rent. In such situation great hardship will be caused to the tenant if he cannot carry out repairs at his own cost especially when he does not want to claim reimbursement from the landlord. As such no inconsistency in the rent note with reference to Sec. 23 of the Act is found. . ( 21 ) THE inconsistency between rent note and Sec. 13 (l) (b) is irrelevant consideration. ( 22 ) FOR the reasons given above I am of the view that the decree for eviction passed by the two Courts below on this ground cannot be sustained. The judgments and decrees of the two Courts below regarding eviction of the revisionist are therefore contrary to law. ( 23 ) SO far as injunction suit is cdncerned, it is now proved that platform was raised by the tenant on the open land which was not in his tenancy. He has no right to raise such platform. May be that the height of the platform is insignificant. He has no further right to erect tin shed over the platform. He has no right to raise such platform. May be that the height of the platform is insignificant. He has no further right to erect tin shed over the platform. The Trial Court has granted decree for permanent injunction in a very wide term and has restrained the tenant permanently from making or causing obstruction to make any further structrual alteration or changes in the shop and from making any construction over the land in front of the shop and from making any construction over the land in front of the shop and from using or causing uses of such land except of coming and going. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant has no right to raise tin shed over the platform. He has right to use open land for ingress and egress purpose through open land as well as through platform. The tenant cannot be permanently restrained from causing minor structural alteration which may be termed as alterations to keep the shop tenantable. As such decree for permanent injunction also requires modification. ( 24 ) IN view of the above discussions these two revisions succeed and are allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two Courts below directing eviction of the revisionist from the suit shop are set aside. Judgments and Decrees of the two Courts below regarding permanent injunction are modified. The tenant is restrained permanently from raising further structure or tin shed over open land or over platform constructed by him. He shall not use platform or open land for any other purpose except for the purpose of ingress and egress. He shall not store any goods over the platform. Rest of the decree for permanent injunction is set aside. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs of these two revisions. .