Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- This is a tenants appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad. The question involved in this appeal, as is usual, in all these cases, is what is just in the circumstances and events that have happened.

2. The premises in question is in the village and P.O. Dhampur in the District of Bijnor in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The suit was filed in 1967. The suit for the eviction of the appellants was filed on the ground that tenants had made material alteration in the property and as such became liable for ejectment in view of S. 3(1)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). The said Section 3 in the said provision enjoins that no suit without the permission of the District Magistrate shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein and clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 was as follows:

"that the tenant has, without the permission in writing of the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such construction as, in the opinion of the Court, has materially altered the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value;"

3. It appears that the constructions on the basis of which eviction of the tenants was claimed were not in dispute and were not disputed at any stage. These were (i) that the tenants have placed a khaprail in place of khasposh; (ii) Kuchha Kothas had been converted into pucca ones which were six in number; (iii) an open place had been enclosed and included in the accommodation in question. The action was contested. It was asserted by the tenants that these constructions had been made in order to save the buildings from rain-water and fire and that these constructions were not such as would make the tenants liable for ejectment within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act of 1947. It was further contended that these constructions had been made with the knowledge and consent of the landlord. The learned trial Judge, which in this case was the Court of learned Munsif at Nagina, by its order dated 17th December, 1968 and the first Appellate Court, which is the Civil Judge, by its order dated 16th February, 1984 have found that the constructions had been made by the tenants without the consent and knowledge of the landlord and that the constructions in question amounted to "material alterations". On these grounds, the landlords suit was decreed and the appeal by the tenants was dismissed.

4. The tenants went in second appeal before the High Court. The High Court found that these alterations had been made, namely, the conversion of six kuchha kothas into pucca one and this was done after demolition of the old constructions. After the old construction had ceased to exist, entirely new constructions had come up in their place. This, according to the High Court, came within the meaning of structural alterations in the building. The High Court further found that the accommodation had been increased by enclosing the nearby open space and that again must have been done by raising walls either connecting the various kothas or in some other way. In either case, the High Court found, the shape and the extent and preparation of the accommodation had been increased and was thereafter different than what it was before. In those circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that the alterations admittedly made by the tenants were "material alterations" and as such came within the mischief of S. 3(1)(c) of the Act of 1947. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and granted two months time to the tenants to vacate. The judgment and the order of the High Court was passed on 21st December, 1979. Leave was granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution on 18th February, 1980. Since then, this appeal is before this Court.

5. A