JUDGMENT : 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.This appeal is of the plaintiff-landlord against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 3.4.1993 by which the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the respondents-tenant and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for obtaining decree for eviction against the defendants- respondents sought on the ground of alleged material alteration in the premises in dispute which was let out to the defendants-respondents in the year 1941. It appears that the plaintiff-appellants filed the suit alleging that defendants-respondents, in the year 1977, raised parafit wall by 4 ft. height and by putting iron angles and cement sheets over the iron angles converted the part of the premises which was open to sky, into two rooms, and in one of the rooms they also constructed a bathroom. The defendants also, in the same manner of putting cement sheets, raised construction of one kitchen which materially altered the premises in question. 2. The defendants-respondents submitted reply in detail that they have never raised any construction nor materially altered the premises, but in fact the said structure was covered by "shirkian" (dead bushes wood) from the time of start of tenancy. In the year 1942 that temporary roof was replaced by cement sheets and in the year 1952 with the consent of the landlord, without any addition or alteration, with the help of iron angles, certain more iron sheets were put. In the year 1957, because of storm the part of cornish and the projection was destroyed, therefore, with the consent of the then landlord, they were again repaired. In this way, the tenant explained how the present structure came into existence in the present form from 1941 to 1977.The trial court, after recording the evidence found the alteration as subsequent one and not as alleged by the defendants and also found that the structure materially altered the premises, therefore, held the plaintiff is entitled for decree for eviction and the trial court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.2.1987. The appellate court reversed the decree holding that though the structure was raised subsequently, but whatever structure is there, it does not constitute any material alteration as the structure is of temporary nature and can be removed without any expenditure and by removal also, there will be no loss to the property. 3. The appellate court reversed the decree holding that though the structure was raised subsequently, but whatever structure is there, it does not constitute any material alteration as the structure is of temporary nature and can be removed without any expenditure and by removal also, there will be no loss to the property. 3. The appellants, therefore, preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 3.4.1993. 4. This Court, while admitting the appeal, framed the following issues on 16.9.1993:- "Whether the construction raised by the defendant-respondent as held by the first appellate court in para No. 14 of its judgment dated April 3, 1993 has not materially altered the disputed premises ?" 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the tenants have raised the constructions of two rooms, laterine, bathroom by raising parafit wall by 4 ft. high. They put the cement plaster and the structure and so far as parafit wall is concerned, it is a pucca construction. The raising of two rooms, laterine, bathroom and kitchen itself are sufficient to hold the alteration in the premises as material. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred the photographs placed on record by the plaintiffs which are Ex.1 to Ex.4. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon a few judgments in support of his case. In one of the cases in Ratanlal v. Mukut Bhihari & Ors., even raising of a fardi wall was considered as material alteration and in the case of Prabhu Lal v. Kalu Ram, 1986 RLR 413, raising of fardi wall with bricks was considered as permanent structure. Even after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the earlier judgment of this court in the case of Kanhaiyalal v. Vishwanath 1997 DNJ 706, this Court held that raising of a construction of pucca nature, amounts to material alteration and if the tenant raises construction without obtaining permission of the landlord, then he is liable to be evicted from the premises. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the first appellate court. 8. I considered the submissions of both the learned counsel and perused the record, photographs and evidence of the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the first appellate court. 8. I considered the submissions of both the learned counsel and perused the record, photographs and evidence of the parties. It is clear from the issue framed by this Court that only point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the appellate court was justified in holding that the alteration made by the tenant cannot be treated as material alteration in rented premises despite the finding recorded in para No. 14 of its judgment dated 3.4.1993. 9. A look at the reasons given not only by the first appellate but also by the trial court it is clear that the structure is not of the permanent nature. Even before the trial court, it was submitted by the plaintiffs themselves that whether structure is of permanent nature or temporary nature, it is not material and this argument was accepted by the trial court by saying that, it is immaterial whether the structure is permanent or temporary, the structure altered the premises materially. In the statement of the plaintiff (PW-1) himself it has come on record that only case of the plaintiffs is that parafit wall of the premises in dispute was raised by 4ft. height and rest of the structure is made of cement sheets over iron angles. Not only this, but even the alleged two rooms, kitchen and latrine also are of cement sheets only though it is stated that there is plaster over these sheets but it appears from the evidence of PW-1 himself as the case set up by the plaintiff, he could not have any personal knowledge of the structure from inside as the alleged changes were made during the pendency of one earlier filed suit for eviction. Even a look at the photographs Ex.1 and Ex.2, placed on record by the plaintiff themselves, it is clear that the structure appears to be of temporary nature raised only by temporary materials without raising any permanent structure. So far as allegation of raising of parafit wall by 4 ft. height is concerned, if examined with photographs Ex. 3 and Ex.4 along with the statement of PW-1, it is clear that there was 6 ft. So far as allegation of raising of parafit wall by 4 ft. height is concerned, if examined with photographs Ex. 3 and Ex.4 along with the statement of PW-1, it is clear that there was 6 ft. high wall was in existence, over which only some loose stones have been put by the defendants which appears to be more for the purpose of giving support to the iron angles and the cement sheets fixed over the iron angles. It appears from the entire pleadings as well as evidence, oral as well as documentary, that in this case neither there is allegation of digging foundation nor there is allegation of raising construction of permanent walls, rather the case of the plaintiffs is of raising the same temporary structure. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash v. Amar Singh reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 617 and this Court, in the case of Smt. Supyar Bai v. Smt. Gordhan Bai through her legal representatives, reported in 1992(1) WLC (Raj.) 590 held that such type of alteration is not material alteration. 11. In the light of these facts, the first appellate court was fully justified in holding that the structure as proved by the plaintiffs cannot prove the alteration of the premises in any material manner so as to make tenant liable for eviction.In view of the above, I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******