ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal from an order dated 30th of August, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 403 of 2004. The appellant before us is a tenant in respect of the premises in question and he had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, directing the respondent to construct a toilet in the said premises on the basis of an agreement entered into by the parties.

3. It is not in dispute that under the agreement, being Exhibit No. P1 before the trial Court, the respondent agreed to reconstruct the premises in question with toilet facility. The premises in question was reconstructed, but, however, the toilet was not reconstructed according to the terms of the agreement. In the old structure of the said premises, the appellant was paying, as a tenant to the respondent, a sum of Rs. 325/- per month as rent. It would be evident from the agreement itself that the tenant had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1250/- per month after reconstruction in terms of the said agreement. Admittedly, under the said agreement, the respondent was liable to reconstruct the premises with toilet facility. The toilet was not constructed and acco