JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant-landlord against the concurrent rejection of the suit for eviction filed on the ground of material alteration in the suit shop in question situated outside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur, without the consent of the landlord. 2. JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant-landlord against the concurrent rejection of the suit for eviction filed on the ground of material alteration in the suit shop in question situated outside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur, without the consent of the landlord. 2. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned trial court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur in the order dated 04.08.1995 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 211/93 Ramdutt v. Kishan Narayan & Sons is quoted below for ready reference:- ^^rudh uEcj ,d%& -------------------esjs fouez er esa izfroknh }kjk ihylZ yxkdj [kqys pkSd dks doj djok;k tkuk oknh fl} dj ikus esa lQy jgk gS ijarq ih MCY;w 1 jkenr ds ftjg ds nkSjku ;g dFku gS fd ,Mh'ku o vkWYVsª'ku dh lwpuk loZizFke JhukFk th cksgjk us nhA lwpuk feyus ds ckn rkfeyh dk;Z ns[kus esa ekSds ij x;k] eSa x;k rc rkfgj cu xbZ FkhA vr% Li"V gS fd ih MCY;w 1 jkenr us rkfgj gksrs viuh vka[kksa ls ugha ns[kh cfYd fuekZ.k ckcr Jh ukFk cksgjk }kjk mls crk;k x;k bl ckcr ih MCY;w 2 Jh ukFk cksgjk ds ftjg ds nkSjku ;g dFku fd;k fd eSa rksM+ QksM+ dh ckr jkenr ls dgh FkhA rksM+ QksM+ ds nkSjku jkenr ekSds ij esjs lkFk vk;s FksA eSusa nhokj dh pqukbZ djrs nq[kk o ihNs Nh.ks p<+rs ns[kkA pqukbZ igyh eafty ij gks jgh Fkh tgka eSa nhokj cukbZ ogka igys nhokj ugha FkhA ;g nhokj pkSd esa cukbZA ;g nhokj [kaMksa dh Fkh ;k vklysVksa dh Fkh eq>s irk ughaA nhokj fdruh Åaph Fkh eq>s irk ugha pqukbZ esa Fkh] eqM esa Fkh] ;k lhesaV esa Fkh eq>s irk ughaA esjs er esa oknh us nhokj cukus ds rF; vius vfHkopuksa esa of.kZr ugha fd;k gS u gh nhokj ds ckjs esa fo'ks"k rF; ih MCY;w 2 JhukFk crk ikus esa lQy gqvk cfYd eq[; ijh{kk esa Lo;a bl xokg ds dFku ihylZ cukus ds ckcr gSA blds vfrfjDr ;g xokg Lo;a vLohdkj djrk gS fd bl nhokj ds uhps [kqnrh ugha ns[khA ;gka ij Q'kZ dh txg Q'kZ gh jgh mls ugha rksM+kA vr% Li"V gS fd oknh mDr fuekZ.k ckcr uhaoksa dh [kqnkbZ vFkok Q'kZ dks rksM+s tkuk fl} djus esa vlQy jgk gS cfYd blds vfrfjDr mldk dFku gS fd uhaoksa dh vFkok Q'kZ dh dks dksbZ uqdlku ugha igaqpk;k x;kA bl fLFkfr esa izfroknh }kjk is'k U;k; n`"Vkar ds izdk'k esa ;g fuekZ.k uhao lhao ls fd;s x;s ifjorZu dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk rFkk fuekZ.k dks ifjlj ds fcuk uqdlku igaqpk;s gVk;k tk ldrk gSA vr% izfroknh }kjk fd;k x;k fuekZ.k dk;Z lkjHkwr ugha gksus ls rudh uEcj ,d fo:} oknh cgd izfroknhx.k fufeZr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k 8- vr% oknh }kjk izLrqr okn ckcr csn[kyh nqdku [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS rFkk 'ks"k p<+s fdjk;s dks fMdzh fd;k tkrk gSA oknh izfroknhx.k ls p<+s fdjk;s ds :i;s 900@& rFkk rkjh[k nk;jh nkok ls 300@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls ;qt ,oa vksD;qis'ku ds gtkZuk dh jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izfroknhx.k bl le;kfof/k dk dksbZ fdjk;k oknh dks vnk fd;k gks vFkok U;k;ky; esa tek djok;k gks] rks og mldk lek;kstu izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA rnuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ rS;kj fd;k tkosA ,lMh@& ¼;qf/kf"Bj 'kekZ½ vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k½ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVsªV la[;k ikap] tks/kiqjA** 3. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned appellate court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur in the order dated 17.08.2000 passed in Civil Appeal Decree No. 53/95 -Ramdutt v. Kishan Narayan & Sons is quoted below for ready reference:- ^^11- gLrxr izdj.k esa oknh }kjk vius okn i= esa vfHkopu fy;s gS fd izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh dh eq[; nqdku ds ihNs fLFkr [kqy pkSd esa tks [kqyk pkSd bl nqdku nqdku o nksuksa rjQ vk;s gq, dejksa] cj.Mksa esa gok jks'kuh o vkokxeu esa :i esa iz;ksx esa vkrk Fkk ml [kqys pkSd esa fcuk oknh dh lgefr ls izfroknhx.k us ihylZ yxkdj ml ij iRFkj dh Nh.ks yxk nh ftlls gok jks'kuh o vkokxeu ds lqfo/kktud LFkku dks [kqy pkSd ds 'kDy esa cnydj mls doj djrs gq, dejs dh 'kDy ns nh ftlls nqdku o dejs cjUMs o ckMk o eksM+s esa iwjk va/ksjk gks x;k o gok jks'kuh esa lkjHkwr deh gks x;h ftlls nqdku dh dher esa Hkkjh deh gks x;h gSA izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2@1 dh vksj ls vius tokcnkok esa oknh us bu vfHkopuksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g dFku gS fd oknxzLr nqdku dkQh iqjkuh cuh gqbZ gS izfroknhx.k us ihyj yxkdj ml ij iRFkj dh Nh.ks ugha yxk;hA lgh gdh;r ;g gS fd bl LFkku ij igys yky iRFkj dh rkehj Fkh tks /khjs&/khjs ysoMh [kk x;h o iRFkj xy x;sA izfroknhx.k us oknh ls iwNdj bu xys gq, iRFkjks dks fudky dj u;s iRFkj yxk;s blds vykok vU; dksbZ dk;Z ugha djok;k o u gh [kqys pkSd dh 'kDy cnyh u gh bl [kqys pkSd dks dejs esa rCnhy fd;k x;kA mUgksaus dsoy ek= iqjkuh ejEer djokbZ dksbZ ubZ rkehj ugha dhA 12- oknh }kjk U;k;ky; ds le{k vius dFkuksa esa [kqys pkSd dh lkbZt 44 xq.kk 22 QqV crk;h gS o bl [kqys pkSd esa ihyj cukdj tks/kiqj dh iV~fV;ka yxkdj bldks iwjk doj dj nsuk dgk gS o bl pkSd ds dejs esa ifjorZu djuk dgk gSA mudk dFku gS fd ;g pkSd Åij rd [kqyk Fkk o bl nqdku dh eq[; ,UVjsal mrj esa gS o bl nqdku ds fy;s gok jks'kuh dk jkLrk ek= 8 QqV dk esuxsV jg x;k gSA izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku bl lk{kh dh lk{; ls ;g rF; Li"V gqvk gS fd izfroknhx.k }kjk ;g dk;Z vxLr 79 ls iwoZ esa djok;k x;k o bl vkWYVsª'ku ckcr mUgsa JhukFk cksgjk tks muds equhe Fks mUgksaus mUgsa crk;k Fkk tc mUgksaus uksfV'k izn'kZ 10 fn;k rc dke iwjk gks pqdk FkkA bl lk{kh }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd ;g esVsfj;y vkWyVsª'ku mUgksaus viuh vka[kksa ls gksrk ns[kk o ns[kus ls igys uksfVlckth 'kq: dj nh Fkh o izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku ;g Hkh dgk gS fd vkWyVsª'ku dh lwpuk izkIr gksus ij og rkehj dk;Z ns[kus x;k rc rd rkehj cu pqdh FkhA 13- bl lk{kh dh mijksDr lk{; ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd bl lk{kh Lo;a }kjk rkehj gksrs ugha ns[kh x;h gSA JhukFk cksgjk ds crk;s tkus ij ;g lk{kh tc ekSds ij igqapk rc rkehj iw.kZ gks pqdh FkhA bl lk{kh }kjk tks ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd rkehj mlus viuh vka[kks ls gksrh ns[kh gS ;g dFku lR; gksuk izrhr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd bl lk{kh Lo;a ds dFkukuqlkj rkehj gksus ds i'pkr ;g lk{kh ekSds ij x;k gSA bl lk{kh }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd rkehj 'kq: gksrs gh mlus uksfVlckth 'kq: dj nh FkhA izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k fd rkehj iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr mUgksaus uksfVl fn;k FkkA bl lk{kh ds vuqlkj rkehj vxLr 79 ls iwoZ gks x;h vkSj bl lk{kh }kjk rkj 2 vxLr 79 dks nsuk o uksfVl izn'kZ 10 lu 1980 esa nsuk crk;k gSA vr% blls Hkh ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd bl lk{kh }kjk rkehj dks gksrs gq, Lo;a viuh vka[kksa ls ugha ns[kk x;k gSA bl lk{kh }kjk rkehj ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fof'k"V rF; Hkh vafdr ugha fd;s x;s gS fd ihyj fdrus gS] iV~fV;k fdruh gS mudh D;k lkbZt gSa o dqy fLFkfr D;k gS\ bl lk{kh ds dFku dsoy ek= lkekU; izd`fr ds gS fd pkSd dks doj dj ml ij iV~fV;k Mky nh x;h gSA 14- ih MCY;w 2 JhukFk cksgjk }kjk viuh eq[; lk{; esa [kEcs yxkdj pkSd dks doj dj dejs cukuk dgk gSA izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku bl lk{kh }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd pkSd ds tho.ks gkFk dh rjQ lk NIij gksus esa cuk gqvk Fkk ckdh [kqyk FkkA bl lk{kh }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd mlus nhokj dh pqukbZ djrs ns[kk Fkk o ihNs Nh.ks p<+rh gqbZ ns[kh FkhA o tgkW ij nhokj cukbZ ogkW igys nhokj ugha FkhA ;g nhokj pkSd ds cukbZ fdUrq ;g lk{kh bl nhokj dh ÅpkbZ vankt ls crkus esa Hkh vlQy jgk gS o ;g crkus esa Hkh vlQy jgk gS fd ;g nhokj [k.Mks dh gS ;g vklysV dh o pqukbZ pqus esa dh ;k eqM esa ;k lhesUV esa FkhA bl nhokj dh dksbZ uhos [kksnrs ugha ns[kuk Hkh bl lk{kh }kjk dgk x;k gS o ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd izfroknh us dqy fdruh nhokjs cukbZ ;g Hkh mls irk ugha gSA bl lk{kh }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd ;gka ij tks Q'kZ Fkh og Q'kZ ogha jgh mls ugha rksM+k o ;g rkehj cuokbZ ogkW ihNs ,d Nijk tSlk cuk gqvk Fkk tks vLFkkbZ Fkk NIijk nks [kEcks ij Bgjk gqvk FkkA Nijs ftruk gh dejk cuk;k Fkk FkksM+k NksVk cM+k cuk;k gks mldk mls ekyqe ugha o izfroknhx.k us tks dk;Z fd;k mldk pquk Vhi IykLVj vkfn gqvk Fkk ugha mls dksbZ Kku ugha gSA tc mlus ns[kk rc [kEcs yxs gq, Fks ;k ugha mls /;ku ugha o mls ;g Hkh /;ku ugha gS fd bl rkehj dk;Z esa pkSd iwjk doj gqvk ;k de doj gqvkA bl izdkj ;g lk{kh Hkh ;g crkus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gS fd izfroknhx.k }kjk okLrfod rkSj ij fdl izdkj ls D;k rkehj dh x;hA bl lk{kh ds lk{; ds vuqlkj bl pkSd esa iwoZ esa [kEcs yxkdj Nijk cuk gqvk Fkk o izfroknhx.k }kjk Nijs ftruk gh dejk cukuk crk;k x;k gS o Q'kZ ftl izdkj ls Fkh mlh izdkj ls jguk crk;k x;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykUV }kjk tks ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd cxSj uhos [kksns ihyj ugha yxk;s tk ldrs og rdZ oknh lk{kh 2 ds bu dFkuksa ls lkjghu gks tkrk gS fd ekSds ij Q'kZ esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ rcnhyh ugha dh x;h cxSj Q'kZ dks rksM+QksM+ fd;s ihylZ o mlds uhps uhos yxk;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA oknh lk{khx.k }kjk ihylZ dh dksbZ eki vanktu Hkh ugha crk;k x;k gS o u gh ihyj dh la[;k crk;h x;h gSA izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls dsoy ek= iqjkuh nhokj dh ejEer djkuk crk;k x;k gSA izfroknh lk{khx.k ds izfrijh{kk esa oknh i{k ,slk dksbZ rF; Li"V djus esa vlQy jgk gS ftlls ;g Li"V gks ls fd izfroknhx.k }kjk oknxzLr pkSd esa lkjHkwr rkSj ij ,slk ifjorZu fd;k gks ftlls oknxzLr ifjlj ds front form and character esa lkjHkwr rkSj ij dksbZ ifjorZu gks x;k gks vFkok ;g ifjorZu LFkkbZ izd`fr dk gks ftls gVk;k ugha tk ldrk gksA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa bl U;k;ky; dh fouez jk; esa oknh rudh uaŒ 1 vius i{k esa izekf.kr djus esa lQy ugha jgk gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us rudh uaŒ 1 ds lEcU/k esa vfUre fu"d"kZ fn;k gS mlesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ rcnhyh dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA 15- vihykUV }kjk tks U;k; n`"VkUr , vkb vkj 1994 jkt- 267 is'k fd;k x;k gS mlesa fdjk;snkj }kjk Nr dks rksM+dj Nr ij tkus ds fy, lhf<+;ksa ds fy;s [kksy fy;k x;k Fkk o mls Vhu ds }kjk doj fd;k tkrk Fkk vr% fLFkfr esa bl cnyko dks lkjHkwr gksuk ekuk x;k tks ifjfLFkfr;kW gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxw gksuk ugha ik;h tkrh gSA vihaykV }kjk izLrqr U;k; n`"VkUr ^^dUgS;kyky cuke fo'oukFk** esa fdjk;snkj }kjk bZV dh nhokj cukdj cajMs dks dejs esa cny dj vkxs 'kVj yxk fn;k x;k FkkA bl U;k;ky; n`"VkUr dh ifjfLFkfr;kW Hkh gLrxr izdj.k ij pLik gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA Qyr% vihykUV }kjk izLrqr vihy fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gksuk ik;h tkrh gSA 16- izR;FkhZ&izfroknhx.k }kjk vius dzksl vkCtsD'ku esa rudh uaŒ 3 ds laca/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, ;g dFku fd;k gS fd oknh }kjk vius okn i= esa fd'ku ukjk;.k ,.M lUl ds uke ls izfroknhx.k dk O;olk; djuk o blh uke ls jlhns tkjh djuk o fd'ku ukjk;.k ds vU; dk;e eqdkeku dk irk ugha py lduk crk;k x;k gS o izfroknh }kjk vius tckonkok esa fd'ku ukjk;.k ds nks vU; iq= gjh'k o dey dks Lo- fd'ku ukjk;.k ds iq= gksuk crkrs gq, mDr nksuksa O;fDr o gjukjk;.k dks nkos esa vko';d i{kdkj gksuk crk;k gSA oknh }kjk fd'ku ukjk;.k ,.M lUl gks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS o fd'ku ukjk;.k ds dk;Z eqdkeku mlds pkj iq= o iRuh dks Hkh i{kdkj cuk;k gS vU; fdlh dks i{kdkj ugha cuk, tkus ls izfroknhx.k dks D;k izhT;qfMl dkWt gqvk gS o fMdzh fdl izdkj ls izHkko'khy ugh jgrh gS ,slk crkus esa izfroknhx.k vlQy jgs gSA bl U;k;ky; dh fouez jk; esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds bl rudh ds fu.kZ; esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd Hkwy gksuk izdV ugha gksrk gSA vU; leLr rudh;kr ds lEcU/k esa Hkh fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vius fu.kZ; esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd ;k rF;kRed Hkwy dh x;h gks ,slk Li"V ugha gksrk gSA vr% dzksl vkCtsd'ku Hkh fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; ik;s tkrs gSA vkns'k vr% vihykUV }kjk izLrqr vihy o izR;FkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr dzksl vkCtsd'ku fujLr fd, tkrs gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 4-8-95 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vihy O;; i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsxsaA rnuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ eqfrZc gksA ,lMh@& ¼,-lh- fla?ky½ vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k la- rhu] tks/kiqjA** 4. While admitting the present second appeal on 20.01.2003, a coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court:- “Whether by erecting pillars in open land and after digging the wall by slabs with stone and putting roof upon it amounts to material alteration in the rented premises?” 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-landlord, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi urged that the construction of permanent nature was made by the defendant-tenant on the open land; after digging foundation wall by slabs was constructed and putting roof upon it, amounts to material alteration with the consent of the landlord and the same falls within the mischief of Section 13(1)(c) Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. He relied upon various case laws in support of his submissions. 6. No one appears for the defendants-respondents-tenant to oppose the above submissions. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-landlord. 8. 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 v. Shivalak Rubber Industries reported in (1996) 2 SCC 626 : AIR 1996 SC 3057 , this Court held as under:- “He relied upon a decision delivered in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries reported in (1996) 2 SCC 626 : 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 meanto diminish in quality, strength or value substantially. The meaning of the expression “to impair materially” in common parlance would meanto 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 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. 9. 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. 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. 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.” 10. 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 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. 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.” 11. 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 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.” 12. 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) alongwith one connected second appeal decided on 24.03.2015, held in relation to the material alterations as under:- “13. 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) alongwith 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.” 13. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned courts below have erred in refusing the eviction on the grounds of material alterations in the suit property, as stated and available on record and the present second appeal of the plaintiff-landlord deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the plaintiff-landlord is allowed and while answering the substantial question of law framed above in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant, the eviction decree is given in favour of the plaintiff-landlord. 15. In the circumstances, it is directed that the defendant-respondent-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the respondent-landlord on or before 31.07.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rupees Five Thousand only) commencing from the month of February, 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-landlord also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of Six Months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff-landlord within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The defendant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or 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. The defendant-tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month 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-landlord within a period of Six Months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff-landlord 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.