Judgment

SINGH, J.: - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and decreeing the landlords suit for eviction against the appellant.

2. The appellant has been tenant of Kothi No. 196 situated in Dholki Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Meerut Cantt. ever since 1961 on a rent of Rs. 93/- per mensem. The tenanted premises was let out to the appellant for running a Dal and Oil Mill. The respondents purchased the building from the erstwhile owners in 1963, a year later, they filed a suit for appellants eviction on a number of grounds including the ground that the appellant had made constructions materially altering the accommodation without their consent causing substantial damages to it. It is not necessary to refer to other grounds as the sole ground which survived for the decree of eviction relates to the material alterations made in the tenanted premises without obtaining the consent of the landlord. The disputed constructions include a partition wall in a hall converting the same into two portions and tin sheds shown by letters ABHG and CDGH. The trial Court held that the partition wall in the hall did not constitute material alteration, it further held that the tin shed marked by letters ABHG had been constructed by the appellant with the consent of the erstwhile landlords predecessor in interest of the respondents but the tin shed marked with letters CDGH had been constructed by the appellant subsequently without respondents consent, which materially altered the accommodation and on that findings the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the Additional Civil Judge set aside the trial Courts order and dismissed the respondents suit on the findings that none of the constructions constituted material alteration justifying appellants eviction under S. 14(c), U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act 10 of 1952. On a second appeal made by the respondent a learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the first appellate Court on the findings that the tin shed indicated by the letters CDHS as well as the partition wall made in the hall converting the same into two rooms, constituted material alteration as contemplated by S. 14(c). Since the constructions had been made without permission of the respondent, the tenant was liable for eviction.

3. There is no dispute that the demised premises is subject to the provisions of the U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S. 14 of the Act imposes restriction on the landlords right to file suit for eviction of a tenant from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds specified therein. Section 14(c) relevant for the purposes of this case reads as under :

"S. 14: Restrictions on eviction- No suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds, namely;

a) to b) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

c) that the tenant has without the permission 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;"

4. The Act does not permit a landlord to file suit for eviction of a tenant without obtaining permission of the District Magistrate but if the tenant, without the landlords permission made or permitted to make construction which in the opinion of the Court has materially altered the accommodation or which is likely to diminish its value substantially, the landlord is free to file suit for tenants eviction without obtaining permission of the District Magistrate. If the tenant makes constructions which materially alter the accommodation, without the permission of the landlord the embargo placed on the landlords right to file suit is lifted and he is free to file suit for tena