JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants plaintiffs in a suit for eviction against the judgment and decree dated 06.05.1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No.7/1988 "Smt. Chatar Bai W/o (widow) Sajjan Lal Mehta v. Moti Lal " by which, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellants-plaintiffs filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1988 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pratapgarh in Civil Original Suit No.134/1980 " LRs of Sajjan Lal S/o Chiman Lal Mehta v. Moti Lal S/o Huvachand Jain Soni, Mahajan " by which, the eviction suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 2. 2. The relevant extract of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1988 passed by the learned trial court is as under:- 12- rudh la[;k&4& bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gSA ftlesa oknh dks ;g lkfcr djuk gS fd izfroknh us oknxzLr nqdku o dksBs dks fdjk;k ysus ds ckn dksBs dh nf{k.k nhoky esa fLFkr njokts o ckjh dks fcuk lgefr oknh ds pwus dh iDdh nhokj cukdj ges'kk ds fy, can dj fn;k ftlls dejs esa gok jks'kuh can gks xbZ gS ,oa fdjk;k yh xbZ nqdku o dksBs esa izfroknh us eVsfj;y ifjorZu dj fn;k ftlls nqdku ,oa edku dh osY;w de gks xbZA bl laca/k esa oknh ih0M0&1& ltUuyky dk c;ku gS fd izfroknh us nqdku esa nf{k.k dh rjQ ,d njoktk o ,d ckjh can dj nh gS ml txg pwus dh iDdh nhokj cuoknh gSA ckjh can djus esa mldh dksbZ lgefr ugha FkhA ckjh vkSj njoktk can gksus ls gok o jks'kuh can gks xbZ gSA nqdku esa va/ksjk jgus yx x;k gS ftlls edku dh dher ?kV pqdh gSA ftjg esa xokg Lohdkj djrk gS fd nqdku 08-11-1969 ls 09-11-1969 rd nks fnu [kkyh jghA bu nks fnuksa esa rkehj esa ikV o Qlh MyokbZA feL=h dk uke ;kn ughaA fdjk;k fpV~Bh esa ;g 'krZ Fkh fd iwoZ rFkk nf{k.k esa f[kM+fd;k o njokts can j[ks tkosaxsA fdjk;k fpV~Bh i<+dj fy[kokbZ vkSj i<+h FkhA nf{k.k fn'kk ds ckjh vkSj njokts djhc ikWap lky iwoZ 1979 esa can fd;sA ml le; esa ;gka ugha Fkk blfy;s uksfVl ugha fn;kA tkudkjh esa vkus ij uksfVl fn;kA uksfVl 1978 esa fn;kA ih0M0&2& xqykejlwy c;ku djrk gS fd izfroknh us nf{k.k esa ,d njoktk o ,d tkyh Fkh ftUgsa can dj fn;kA pwuk lhesaV bZaVksa ls can dj fn;k] can gksus ls nqdku esa va/ksjk jgus yx x;kA ftjg esa xokg Lohdkj djrk gS fd izfroknh us tc ls nqdku fdjk;s ij yh rc ls f[kM+dh o njoktk can dh jgrk Fkk ;g lgh gSA njokts o f[kM+dh dkSu ls feL=h us can fd;k irk ughaA feL=h dgka dk Fkk ;kn ughaA ih0M0&3& >edkyky c;ku djrk gS fd nqdku ds nf{k.k esa ,d njoktk o ckjh Fkh ftls izfroknh us can dj fn;kA njokts can djus ls gok jks'kuh canh gks xbZ ftlls nqdku dh dher de gks xbZA ftjg esa xokg djrk gS fd njokts f[kM+dh can djus ls eSa lky laor dqN ugha crk ldrkA feL=h dk uke ugha crk ldrkA ih0M0&4&Hks:yky bl ckcr dksbZ lk{; ugha nsrk gSA ih0M0&6&Jh dslj flag c;ku djrk gS fd izfroknh us nf{k.k fn'kk esa njoktk o f[kM+dh Fkh o iksy esa Hkh f[kM+dh Fkh ftls can dj fn;kA ftjg esa dgrs gS fd fdlh feL=h us dke fd;k can dk /;ku ughaA feL=h o etnwj fdlus dke ij j[ks /;ku ughaA dke eksrhyky us djk;k FkkA izfroknh eksrhyky bl ckcr c;ku djrk gS fd nqdku ds ihNs njoktk o f[kM+dh Fkh ftls oknh ds equhe tokgjyky us can djok nhA pwgs vkrs Fks blfy;s geus xquheth ls dgk vkSj can djok fn;kA njoktk o f[kM+dh dks can j[kus dh 'krZ Fkh fd can jgsaxsA njoktk o f[kM+dh can gksus ls nqdku dh dher de ugha gqbZA oknh o mldk ifjokj iwuk jgrs gSaA mlds nqdku ds ikl gh oknh dh pkj nqdku gS vkSj lHkh fdjk;s ij gSA ftjg esa xokg Lohdkj djrk gS fd equhe us can dh ;k equhe dkSu gksrk gS can djokus okyk ,slk tokcnkos esa ugha fy[kk;kA njoktk f[kM+dh dc can gqbZ /;ku ugha gSA can jgus ls nqdku dh dher c<+h gSA D;ksafd bZaVksa dh pqukb gSA pwgs vkus ds dkj.k f[kM+dh o njoktk can fd;k ;g tokcnkos esa fy[kk;k gSA 2- nf{k.k fn'kk esa oknxzLr nqdku ds njokts o f[kM+dh can gksuk fookfnr ugha gSA izfroknh Lo;a bls Lohdkj djrk gS ijUrq mldk dguk gS fd pwgksa ds vkus ds dkj.k fdjk;k fpV~Bh esa bUgsa can j[kus dh 'krZ ds dkj.k gh euhe ls dgdj can djok;k gSA izfroknh ds vuqlkj bl dk;Z ls oknxzLr nqdku dh dher esa dksbZ deh ugha vkbZ vfirq c<+h gS D;ksafd nhoky gks xbZ gSA blds foijhr oknh dk dFku gS fd bl dk;Z ls dher de gqbZ gS D;ksa fd nqdku esa gok o jks'kuh dk vHkko gks x;k gSA 3- vc gesa ;g ns[ku gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku ds njokts o f[kM+fd;kWa can fd;s x;s gSa os /kkjk 13 ( lh ) jktLFkku fizfelsl dUV~ksy vkWQ jsUV ,.M bfoD'ku ,DV esa of.kZr rkfRod ifjorZu dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS ;k ughaA 4- fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh }kjk vkj0,y0MCY;w0 1975 ist 496 uthj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA bl ekeys esa fdjk;snkj us fcuk ekfyd dh vuqefr ds fuEu ifjorZu fd;sA if'peh nhoky dh f[kM+dh ds njokts dks can dj fn;kA iwohZ nhoky dh f[kM+dh ds yksgs ds lfj;s fudky dj 'kh'kk yxk fn;k] nqdku dh Q'kZ dks rksM+ nh vkSj [kaHkksa ds VksMs rksM+ fn;sA bl ekeys esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fdjk;snkj }kjk fd;s x;s ifjorZu dks rkfRod ekuk D;ksafd f[kM+dh can djus ls gok vkSj jks'kuh tSlh lqfo/kk can gks xbZ FkhA ;g uthj bl izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrh D;ksafd rF;ksa esa Hkkjh fHkUurk gSA D;ksafd orZeku izdj.k esa nqdku dk mi;ksx izfroknh dj jgk gS vkSj njokts o f[kM+dh can j[kus dh 'krZ fdjk;k fpV~Bh esa Fkh vkSj os can j[ks tk jgs FksA 5- ,d vU; izLrqr uthj ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1967 ( ,y0lh0 ) okys ekeys esa Ms<+ fQV Q'kZ dks [kksndj gVk nh vkSj u;k Q'kZ yxk fn;kA njoktk Hkh NksVk dj fn;k vkSj nqdku dh lhf<+;ksa ds lery dj fn;k o ubZ lh<+h cuk nh rFkk nqdku ds ckgj pcqrjk Fkk mldks Hkh uhpk dj fn;k ftlls nqdku ds /kjkry ds vuq:i gks tkosA bl ifjorZu dks ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us rkfRod ifjorZu ekuk D;ksafd ifjlj esa :i vkSj cukoV dks u;k :i ns fn;k x;k Fkk ijUrq bl uthj esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr Hkh bl izdkj esa rF;ksa esa Hkkjh fHkUurk ds dkj.k ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA 6- fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk vkj0,y0MCY;w0 1979 ist 201 Hkh is'k dh xbZ gSA bl izdj.k esa fdjk;snkj us pkj ifjorZu fd;s 1 dsyw iks'k dejs ds ihNs dh o lkbZM dh nhokyksa dh mapkbZ nh 2 dejs dh Nr ds dsyw gVk fn;s vkSj lhesUV 'khV dh Nr Mky nh 3 iwoZ esa dsyw iks'k dejs dh Nr dh <+ky mRrjh o nf{k.kh fn'kk esa Fks ftls cnydj flQZ mRrjh fn'kk esa dj fn;k 4 nf{k.kh nhoky esa tks njoktk Fkk mls rksM+dj mapk dj fn;kA orZeku izdj.k esa izfroknh us rkfRod ifjorZu ugha dj dsoy njoktk o f[kM+dh can fd;s gS tks can j[ks tkus ds funsZ'k iwoZ ls gh Fks D;ksafd nf{k.kh vksj oknh ds gh fjgkb'kh edku dk pkSd gSA 7- fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh }kjk 1986@2 fodyh ykW uksV ist 68 izLrqr dh xbZ gSA bl izdj.k esa fdjk;snkj ds nqdku ds ihNs dh rjQ ls njokts esa bZaV dh ijnh dks gVk fn;k ftlls og ihNs ds jkLrs ls vius fdjk;s ds fjgkb'kh edku esa lh/kk tk ldsA bl ifjorZu dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us rkfRod ugha ekukA 8- vkj0,y0MCY;w0 1964 ist 213 okys edku esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd %& "The question whether any material alteration has been made in the premises is a question of fact in each case depending upon the nature of the premises and nature. Extent and effect of the construction made therein. The alteration should be at structural material and not merely of decorative nature. Fixing a door to a room or to a garage by a tenant may not amount to the material alteration within the meaning of Section 13(i) (c) of the Act. But the same will not be the case when an open Verandah is converted into a closed portion. The character and shape of the premises in the former case remain unchanged while in the later case the forms structure of the premises is changed." 9- izLrqr izdj.k esa izfroknh }kjk flQZ njokts ds Hkhrjh vksj bZaV dh ijnh ls njoktk o f[kM+dh can djuk crk;k x;k gSA dksbZ vU; fuekZ.k izfroknh us fd;k gks ,slk dFku oknh dk ugha gSA njoktk o f[kM+dh ;Fkkor dsoy bZaV dh inhZ gVk nsus ls iqu% dk;e gks tk;saxsA oSlh Hkh bl ifjorZu ls ifjlj ds mi;ksx miHkksx esa vkSj mlls lacaf/kr vU; ifjljksa ds mi;ksx miHkksx esa fdlh izdkj dh vlqfo/kk gksus dk iz'u gh ugha gS D;ksafd ;s njokts o f[kM+dh can j[kus dh 'krZ tgka fdjk;k fpV~Bh esa vafdr gS ogha bls can j[kk Hkh x;k gS tks rF; i;kZIr lk{; ls Lo;a oknh dh lk{; ls Hkh lkfcr gSA tc ;s can gh Fks rks bZaV dh inhZ ls can dj fn;s tkus ls fLFkfr esa dksbZ cnyko ugha vk;k gS vkSj fQj njoktk o f[kM+dh dks bl inhZ dks gVkdj iqu% dk;e fd;k tk ldrk gS vr% bl ifjorZu dks uthjksa ls izkIr ekxZn'kZu ds vuq:i rkfRod ifjorZu ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij oknh ifjlj dks fjDr djkus dk vf/kdkjh ugha ekuk tk ldrk vr% ;g rudh oknh ds fo:) ,oa izfroknh ds i{k esa r; dh tkrh gSA 3. The relevant extract of the judgment and decree dated 06.05.1992 passed by the appellate court is as under:- " 6- eSaus nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk ,oa iz=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA vihy dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku fo}ku odhy vihykFkhZ dks dsoy ,d ek= rdZ ;g jgk gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk dksBs dh nf{k.kh nhokj vkSj f[kM+dh dks can dj nsus ls fooknxzLr ifjlj esa lkjHkwr ifjorZu gksuk ugha ekuus esa dkuwuh ,oa rF;ksa dh Hkwy dh gSA bl laca/k esa i{kdkjku }kjk izLrqr lk{; o fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA oknh us vius okn&i= esa ;g dgha Hkh vafdr ugha fd;k gS fd izfroknh us dc vkSj fdl o"kZ esa nhokj dk fuekZ.k dj dksBs dk nf{k.kh njoktk o nhokj can dhA tcfd izfroknh us tokcnkok esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd nqdku tc fnukad 03-02-1970 dks fdjk;k fpV~Bh fy[kh gS] mlds iwoZ ls gh njoktk vkSj f[kM+dh can pyh vk jgh gS] vkSj oknh Lo;a us fuekZ.k dk;Z djus can djok;s gSaA oknh us ;g okn lu~ 1980 esa izLrqr fd;kA tcfd loZ izFke uksfVl tks oknh }kjk izfroknh dks fn;k x;k] og izn'kZ&2 gSA ;g uksfVl fnukad 19-04-1978 dk gSA bl uksfVl ls oknh us izfroknh dks ;g dgha Hkh lwfpr ugha fd;k gS fd izfroknh us oknh dh lgefr ds fcuk dksBs esa nhokj [kM+h dj nf{k.kh njoktk vkSj f[kM+dh dks can dj fn;k gSA vr% blds lanHkZ esa oknh dh lk{; dk foospu fd;k x;kA ih0MCY;w0&1&lTtuyky us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa crk;k gS fd izfroknh us nqdku ds nf{k.kh rjQ ,d ckjh vkSj ,d njoktk cUn dj fn;s gSa] vkSj izfroknh us pwus dh iDdh nhokj cuk nh gS] vkSj izfroknh us ;g dk;Z djus esa dksbZ lgefr ugha yh gSA njoktk ,oa ckjh cUn djus ls gok ,oa jks'kuh esa deh gqbZ gS] ftlls nqdku dh dher de gks xbZ gSA ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd izfroknh dks nqckjk :0 30@& ekgokj ij nqdku fdjk;s ij nh] rc blls nks fnu iwoZ fooknxzLr edku esa rkehj dh Fkh] ikV o QlhZ yxokbZ FkhA ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd izn'kZ 1 fdjk;k fpV~Bh esa ;g 'krZ Fkh fd iwoZ fn'kk esa rFkk nf{k.k esa f[kM+fd;ksa dk njoktk can j[kk tk;sxkA ;g c;ku djrk gS fd nf{k.k fn'kk esa oknh us viuk njoktk djhc ikap o"kZ fQj dgk fd lu~ 1979 esa can fd;s FksA mlds vuqlkj ml le; og izrkix<+ esa ugha Fkk] blfy;s mlus dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k] vkSj tkudkjh esa vkus ij uksfVl fn;k FkkA og Lohdkj djrk gS fd uksfVl lu~ 1978 esa fn;k FkkA ;k Lo;a oknh ds c;kuksa esa bl fcUnq ij dkQh fojks/kkHkkl gS fd izfroknh us nhoky cukdj nf{k.kh njokts ,oa ckjh can fd;k gksA xokg dk c;ku lu~ 1984 esa gqvk gSA og nhokj dk fuekZ.k ikap o"kZ iwoZ ;kfu lu~ 1979 esa izfroknh }kjk fd;k tkuk crk;k gS] ysfdu vk'p;Z dh ckr gs fd mlus izfroknh dks bl laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk ugha nh] tcfd ;g nkok mlus lu~ 1980 esa izLrqr fd;k] vkSj mlesa igyh ckj njoktk ,oa f[kM+dh can fd;s tkus dFku fd;s] o dc can fd;s ;g Hkh vafdr ugha fd;kA 7- ih0MCY;w0&2& xqykejlwy Hkh c;ku djrk gS fd izfroknh us nhokj cukdj njoktk ,oa ckjh ikap o"kZ iwoZ can dj fn;s] ysfdu ftjg esa og c;ku djrk gS fd izfroknh us tcls nqdku fdjk;s ij yh] rc ls f[kM+dh o njoktk can gh jgrk gSA og ;g ugha crk ldrk fd njoktk o f[kM+dh dkSu ls feL=h us can fd;sA ih0MCY;w0&3& >edyky dk c;ku gS fd izfroknh us njoktk o ckjh dks pwus o bZaVksa ls can dj fn;sA ;g ckr ikap o"kZ iwoZ dh gSA mldk dFku gS fd njoktk ,oa ckjh can djus ls gok ,oa jks'kuh can gks xbZ gSA og oknh dk ukSdj gSA ;g xokg ;g ugha crk ldrk fd njoktk o f[kM+dh fdl lky ,oa laor esa can gqos] vkSj feL=h dk uke Hkh ugha crk ldrkA ih0MCY;w0&6&ds'kjflag xokg gSA xokg ds c;ku lu~ 1985 esa gqos gSaA ;g xokg c;ku djrk gS fd 5&6 lky igys izfroknh us njoktk ,oa f[kM+fd;ksa dks can dj fn;k gSA 8- blds foijhr Mh0MCY;w0&1& eksrhyky us c;ku fd;k gS fd nqdku ds ihNs dh rjQ ,d njoktk ,oa f[kM+dh Fkh] ftldks oknh ds equhe tkudhyky us can dj fn;s] D;ksafd m/kj pwgs vkrs FksA mldk ;g Hkh c;ku gS fd njoktk ,oa f[kM+dh ds laca/k esa fdjk;snkjh esa 'krZ Fkh fd ;s can jgsaxsA mldk c;ku gS fd njoktk ,oa f[kM+dh can gksus ls nqdku dh dher esa dksbZ vUrj ugha vk;k gS] ysfdu ftjg esa izfroknh ugha crk ldk fd f[kM+dh o njoktk fdlus can fd;s] o dc can fd;sA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us lk{; ds foospu ds i'pkr~ bl laca/k esa dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk gS fd njokts ,oa f[kM+dh izfroknh ls oknh dh lgefr ds fcuk cUn dj fn;s] vFkok oknh ds lgefr ls fd;s] ysfdu bl laca/k esa eSaus lk{; dk foospu fd;k rks eSa ;g ikrk gwWa fd f[kM+dh vkSj njokts pkgs izfroknh us nhokj [kM+h djs cuk;s gks] bl laca/k esa oknh dh ekSu lgefr jgh gSA oknh us izFke ckj lu~ 1980 ds nkos esa buds ckjs esa ,rjkt fd;k gSA lu~ 1978 esa uksfVl Hkstk mlesa njokts ,oa ckjh can djus dh dksbZ vkjksi ugha yxk;k x;kA 1979 esa oknh njokts ,oa ckjh dks can j[ksxkA ,slk blfy;s fd;k x;k D;ksafd muds ihNs oknh ds nwljs edkukr vkSj pkSd gS] vkSj ;g f[kM+dh vkSj njoktk [kqy j[ks tkrs rks oknh dks vius nwljs edkukr vkSj pkSd esa vuko';d n[ky gksrkA vr% izn'kZ&1 fdjk;k fpV~Bh ds lanHkZ esa bu fdjk;k fpV~Bh dks ns[ks rks ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd ;fn njoktk ,oa ckjh izfroknh }kjk can dh xbZ rks ;g oknh ds lgefr ls gh dh xbZ gSA 9- yk;d odhy vihykFkhZx.k dk rdZ gS fd fuekZ.k dk;Z nqdku esa lkjHkwr ifjorZu gks x;k gS] d;ksafd nhokj cukus ls njoktk vkSj f[kM+dh can gks xbZ gS] vanj izdk'k vkuk can gks x;k gS] vkSj nqdku dh dher de gks xbZ gSA os ;g izdV ugha dj lds fd nqdku dh dher esa fdl izdkj dHkh vk xbZ gSA eSa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds bl fu"d"kZ ls lger gwa fd nhokj bZaVksa dh ijnh ds :i esa cukbZ xbZ gS vkSj mlds ihNs njoktk vkSj f[kM+dh dk;e gS] vkSj tc dHkh t:jr gks] nhokj dks fxjkdj iwoZ esa cus gqos njokts ,oa f[kM+dh dks iwoZor mi;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gSA esjs fopkj ls fdjk;snkjh dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj tc rd nqdku izfroknh ds ikl fdjk;s ij gS] rc rd nf{k.kh njoktsa vkSj f[kM+dh dk mi;ksx djuk oftZr Fkk] rks bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa nhokj ds fuekZ.k ls esjs fopkj ls nqdku esa dksbZ lkjHkwr ifjorZu gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA yk;d odhy vihykFkhZ us la[rjko cukx Hkxoryky] vkj0,y0MCY;w0 ist 496] dk voyksdu djok;k gS] ftlesa fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gqos ;g ekuk fd if'peh fn'kk dh f[kM+dh ds LFkkbZ rkSj ij can dj nsus ls edku esa lkjHkwr ifjorZu gks tkrk gS] vkSj edku ekfyd bl vk/kkj ij csn[kyh dh fMdzh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ysfdu blh uthj esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; eueksgu flag cuke fd'kunkl ds fopkjksa dks O;Dr fd;s gSa%& without attempting to lay down any general definition as to what material alternations mean, as such a question would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, the alteration in the present case must mean material alterations as the construction carried out by the respondent had the effect at alternative form and structure of the accommodation. The expression material alterations, in its ordinary meaning would mean important alteration such as these which materially or substantially change the form and/or the structure of the presmises. The expression material alterations, in its ordinary meaning would mean important alteration such as these which materially or substantially change the form and/or the structure of the presmises. 10- vr% fdlh ifjlj esa lkjHkwr ifjorZu gqvk ;k ugha] ;g ml izdj.k ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djsxkA ekStwnk izdj.k esa ;g ik;k x;k gS fd gkykafd oknh ikap o"kZ iwoZ izfroknh dk nhokj cukdj f[kM+dh vkSj njoktk cukuk crkrk gS] ysfdu mlus dHkh Hkh bl laca/k esa dksbZ ,rjkt ugha fd;k] vr% mldh ekSu Lohd`fr gh ekuh tk;sxhA blds vykok ekStwnk izdj.k esa izn'kZ 1 fdjk;k fpV~Bh ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd nf{k.kh njokts o f[kM+dh dks izfroknh }kjk [kksyus ij fu"ks/k FkkA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bZaVksa dh ijnh [kM+h dj bUgsa can dj fn;k x;k rks mlls dksbZ LFkkbZ cnyko ifjlj esa ugha vk;kA bZaVksa dh ijnh tc pkgs fxjkdj ihNs cus gqos njokts vkSj f[kM+dh dh iwoZor mi;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% lk{;] rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa fof/k ds foospu ds i'pkr~ esa ;g ikrk gwWa fd izLrqr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfroknh }kjk bZaVksa dh ijnh cuk nsus ls ifjlj esa dksbZ lkjHkwr ifjorZu ugha gqvk gSA vr% bl laca/k esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS] og fcYdqy mfpr ikrk gwWaA 11- izR;kpifRr;ksa dh cgl ij odhy izfroknh@izR;FkhZ us ;g rdZ j[kk gS fd izfroknh ges'kk euhvkMZj ds tfj;s oknh dks fdjk;k Hkstrk vk;k gS] ysfdu u oknh us ges'kk euhvkMZj tks mls Hksts x;s] ysus ls badkj dj fn;k] vr% izfroknh us dksbZ fof/kd pwd ugha dh gS] vkSj bl laca/k esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ =qfViw.kZ gSa eSaus bl laca/k esa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA okn&i= esa fnukad 10-03-1978 ls 09-07-1980 rd dqy 28 ekg dk fdjk;k cdk;k gksus dk dFku fd;k gS] ftldk izfroknh us tokc nkos esa [kaMu ugha fd;k gSA izfroknh }kjk lk{; esa ehuvkMZj dh ,d izfr dks izekf.kr djok;k x;k gS] tks izn'kZ ,&3 gSA blds }kjk izfroknh us oknh dks fnukad 10-03-1980 ls 09-10-1980 rd ,d ekg dk fdjk;k Hkstk gS] tks ysus ls badkj fd;k x;k gSA oknh us ;g nkok fnukad 28-07-1980 dks izLrqr dj fn;k Fkk] vkSj tkfgj gS fd ;g fdjk;k nkos ds ckn esa ,d ekg dk Hkstk x;k gSA izfroknh us vU; dksbZ Hkh euhvkWMZj izLrqr ugha fd;s gSa] vkSj u gh fl) djok;s gSa fd ftuls ;g izekf.kr gks fd izfroknh fu;fer :i ls o yxkrkj euhvkWMZj ls oknh dks fdjk;k Hkstrk vk;k gS vkSj oknh us bUgsa ysus ls bUdkj fd;k gSA vr% tkfgj gS fd ftl jkst oknh us okn izLrqr fd;k] ml jkst fnukad 10-03-1978 ls 06-07-1980 rd dqy 28 ekg dk fdjk;k ckdh FkkA fd tks izfroknh us fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k ds ckn gh vnk fd;k gSA iwoZ esa oknh dks Hkstk x;k gks ;k oknh dks fufnRr Vs.Mj fd;k gks] ,slk dksbZ izek.k ugha gSA vr% bl laca/k esa oknh dh lk{; dks ekuus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gS fd izfroknh us dHkh dksbZ fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k] vkSj u gh euhvkMZj HkstkA vr% bl laca/k esa yk;d odhy izfroknh@izR;FkhZ dh izR;kifRr;ksa esa Hkh dksbZ lkj ugha ik;k tkrkA 12- vr% ;g vihy o dzksl&vksCtsD'ku [kkfjt fd;s tkrs gSaA izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gqos nksuksa i{k viuk&viuk [kpkZ Lo;a ogu djsaxsA Sd/- y{ehnRr 'kekZ ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k izrkix<+ ( jktLFkku ) 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the judgments and decree of both the Courts below. 5. The ground of eviction is under Section 13 (1) (c) "material alteration without permission of the landlord". The plaintiff/landlord has claimed eviction on the ground that such material alteration was of permanent nature and the same was carried out by the defendant without the permission or consent of the landlord. There is variation of opinion in the two courts below but as far as the facts are concerned the finding are common. While the learned trial court found it to be a "material alteration" falling within the mischief of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act of 1950 resulting in eviction decree, but the learned appellate court found that whether the wall, closing the door and window constructed by the defendant, the plaintiff remained silent, therefore, presumption of implied consent was drawn by the learned appellate court. The appellate court also found that behind the wall on the door and closed window in question, other houses and chowk of plaintiff was there and if the door and window would have been remained open, the same would cause unnecessary disturbance in the other portion of houses and chowk of the plaintiff. 6. This Court dealt with a case of "material alterations" in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. New Delhi, 2012 CJ (Rent Control) 218 and considering the ratio case of Supyar Bai, 1992 (2)RLR 665 , held that where the tenant has a showroom of DCM, was in the nature of removal of two doors of the suit premises and the wall between two parts of the demised premises was raised by the tenant for making it a bigger showroom, and it was argued that it will enhance the value of the rented premises, the Court held that such structural changes amounted to material alteration. Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Gurbachan Singh & Anr. v. Shivalak Rubber Industries & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 3057 , this Court held as under:- "He relied upon a decision delivered in the case of Gurbachan Singh & Anr. v. Shivalak Rubber Industries & Ors. Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Gurbachan Singh & Anr. v. Shivalak Rubber Industries & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 3057 , this Court held as under:- "He relied upon a decision delivered in the case of Gurbachan Singh & Anr. v. Shivalak Rubber Industries & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 3057 , the relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:- "Section 13 (2) (iii) contemplates that a tenant is liable to eviction who has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land. The meaning of the expression "to impair materially" in common parlance would mean to diminish in quality, strength or value substantially. In other words to make a thing or substance worse and deteriorate. The word "impair" cannot be said to have a fixed meaning. It is a relative term affording different meaning in different context and situations. Here in the context the term "impair materially" has been used to mean, considerable decrease in quality which may be measured with reference to the antecedent state of things as it existed earlier in point of time as compared to a later stage after the alleged change is made or affected suggesting impairment. Further the use of the word "value" means intrinsic worth of a thing. In other words utility of an object satisfying, directly or indirectly, the needs or desires of a person. Thus, the ground for eviction of a tenant would be available to a landlord against the tenant under Section 13 (2) (iii) of the Act, if it is established that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to diminish the quality, strength or value of the building or rented land to such an extent that the intrinsic worth or fitness of the building or the rented land has considerably affected its use for some desirable practical purposes. In the instant case even if it is assumed that the tenant had raised the construction of shed over the part of the open land of the demised premises with the written consent of the landlord as may be spelt out from the rent note, then the rest of the construction, additions and alterations of the 5 shops and the verandah in front of the said shops of a permanent nature, will certainly amount to acts as have or likely to have impaired materially the value or utility of the building/premises let out to them. The nature of the construction is relevant consideration in determining the question of material impairment in the value or utility of the building or the demised premises. The removal of the roof of the shops partition walls and the doors, laying of a roof, merging of the verandah with the shops, closing the doors and opening new does and windows and converting the premises altogether, giving totally a new and a different shape and complexion by such alteration would certainly be regarded as one involving material impairment of the premises affecting its fitness for use for desirable practical purpose and intrinsic worth of the demised premises from the point of view of the landlords within the meaning of Section 13 (2) (iii). Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case squarely falls within the mischief of the provisions contained in Section 13 (2) (iii) of the Act which make the tenant liable for eviction from the demised premises. 7. In that case, this Court also negatived the defendant's claim that such alterations were done for security reasons. The relevant para 11 is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- "11. As far as the issue of material alteration is concerned, the nature of the alterations carried out by the tenant were admittedly done without prior permission and consent of the landlord. Some of the structural changes were also made like removal of two doors, one wall in between and in place of that iron girders were put to make it bigger hall (showroom). These alterations indisputably were material alterations. Closing of ventilators, two windows by the tenant was a civil work, of permanent nature and, so also, the designs of arches and pillars were also modified by the tenant. By no stretch of imagination, this could be said to be not a material alteration. These alterations indisputably were material alterations. Closing of ventilators, two windows by the tenant was a civil work, of permanent nature and, so also, the designs of arches and pillars were also modified by the tenant. By no stretch of imagination, this could be said to be not a material alteration. If such work was to be done, which could be done only with the consent of the landlord, however, in the absence of the same, once the fact of such material alteration has been proved by the plaintiff, the same could not be defended on the ground of alleged security reasons. There was no security reason at all and at best it could be said to be to bring construction in conformity with the requirement of a showroom for selling clothes. With the removal of doors, glass panels were put up with removal of wall and putting up iron girders, the size of the showroom was increased by removal of central wall. All these alterations having been done without express or implied consent of the landlord definitely resulted in material alterations of the suit premises without their consent and consequently the ground of eviction was made out." 8. Similarly, the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh v. Smt. Meva Devi, 2006 CJ (Rent Control) 558 , the facts of that case are very nearer the facts of the instant case, also found that where part of suit property belonging to plaintiff was encroached by the defendant/tenant, which was not covered by the rent-note, the same would amount nuisance under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act of 1950. The relevant para 10 of the said judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference:- "10. The lower court passed a decree of eviction against the tenant in respect of rented premises covered by the rent-note. The first appellate court decided Issues No.3 and 7 in favour of plaintiff and passed a decree of possession in respect of portion of the building which was illegally occupied by the defendant-tenant. The defendant was tenant in one room on first floor with latrine facility and while taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff landlord, he illegally occupied some rooms on the first floor as well as in the underground of the same building belonging to the plaintiff - landlord. The defendant was tenant in one room on first floor with latrine facility and while taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff landlord, he illegally occupied some rooms on the first floor as well as in the underground of the same building belonging to the plaintiff - landlord. The first appellate court has recorded a finding in this regard that the tenant illegally occupied the said portion of the building as described in Para 3 of the plaint. The question of law urged by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has already been considered and answered in the above referred judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court. In those cases, referred above, a decree of eviction was passed against the tenant in respect of that portion of the building which was not covered by the rent note and was illegally occupied by the tenant in the same building belonging to the plaintiff/landlord. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted in view of the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The learned first appellate court was right in deciding Issues No.3 and 7 in favour of the plaintiff respondents and was right in passing a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in respect of that portion of the building which was illegally occupied by the tenant. The question of illegal occupation of the portion of the building is purely a question of fact and even otherwise this finding of fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants during course of arguments that he illegally occupied it." 9. In the case of Chhuttan Lal Shrimal, 2004 CJ (Rent Control) 111, where the defendant/tenant constructed number of poultry farms on the large area compound even with no permanent structure raised by him, the Court found that it would amount to material alteration in the rented premises resulting in eviction decree. The relevant para 15 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "15. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the judgments relied upon. The trial court having considered the entire evidence held that it amounts to material alteration as it has changed the form and character of the premises. The relevant para 15 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "15. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the judgments relied upon. The trial court having considered the entire evidence held that it amounts to material alteration as it has changed the form and character of the premises. The first appellate court did not record any finding on this aspect of the matter. Keeping in view the entire material available on the record, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court and thus the construction of poultry farms over the land has rightly been held as material alteration by the trial court." 10. This Court in the case of Mahant Prahladdas Chela Mahant Yuktiram v. Devi Singh S/o Lal Singh (D) through LR's (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.133/2001) along with one connected second appeal decided on 24.03.2015, held in relation to the material alterations as under:- "13. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that first appellate court has erred in refusing eviction decree though the facts found by it were same as found by the learned trial court. The construction of tin shed by raising of a wall on the one side with the foundational work done by the defendant/tenant by encroaching on the open land belonging to the plaintiff/landlord certainly amounted to material alteration and nuisance in the suit premises furnished ground of eviction u/s 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of the Act of 1950, and the learned first appellate was not justified in refusing the eviction decree. The present second appeal of the appellant/plaintiff/landlord, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the substantial question of law, framed above, deserves to be answered in favour of appellant/plaintiff." 11. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the learned courts below have erred in refusing eviction decree, while discussing facts on the same footing. The learned trial court found that the plaintiff was completely failed to prove that fact that how the construction of the wall and closing the door and window by the tenant has adversely effected the valuation of the shop in question. The learned trial court also found that because of the problem of rats coming in the shop, the wall and window were closed. The learned trial court also found that because of the problem of rats coming in the shop, the wall and window were closed. The learned appellate court found that whether the wall or window constructed by the defendant, the plaintiff remained silent, therefore, presumption of implied consent was drawn by the learned appellate court. The appellate court also found that behind the wall and window in question, other houses and chowk of plaintiff was there and if the door and window would have been remained open, the same would cause unnecessary disturbance in the other portion of houses and chowk of the plaintiff. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the alterations made by the defendant-tenant were of permanent nature and amount to material alteration without the permission of the landlord and fell within the mischief of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act in the light of aforesaid case laws and the plaintiff is entitled to the eviction decree on the basis of the facts found by both the courts below. 13. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the plaintiff/landlord is allowed and the impugned judgment and decrees dated 21.04.1988 and 06.05.1992 passed by the learned courts below are set aside and it is directed that therespondent/defendant/tenant, who is now represented through his legal representatives, shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises in question to the plaintiff/appellant on or before 31.12.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per month commencing from January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/appellant, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The Respondent/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/appellant, within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The Respondent/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/appellant, within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The respondent/defendant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The defendant/tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/appellant on or before 31.12.2016 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/appellant or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith. *******