N.A. Britto, J.

These are plaintiffs second appeals.

2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suits:

3. The plaintiff is the owner of a property known as "Maddem" having land registration No. 29031, Matriz No. 2290 surveyed under No. 114/5 with a house in it, situated in Umtawaddo of Calangute village.

4. The plaintiff by virtue of an agreement dated 24.9.1976 let out to defendant No. 1 the said house as per the plan attached with compound at the back of the house and a strip of land which went up to the seashore; on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 775/-. The lease was for a period of 22 years from 1.4.1976, for the purpose of running a guest house. Considering the nature of the business, it was agreed between the parties that rent would be Rs. 425/- per month for the first year and with a proportionate increase of Rs. 50/- every subsequent year. Clause 9 of the said Deed, which is most relevant, reads as follows :

"The lessee shall be allowed to carry on in the demised premises repairs and make such additions and alterations as shown in the plan hereto annexed as Exh. B. The lessee, however, at the time of handing over possession of the demised premises shall not be allowed to remove from the demised premises any fixtures or fittings or any additions and alterations done in the demised premises barring the sanitary fittings installed by the lessee in the toilets and bathrooms of the demised premises."

5. The next most important clause namely clause No. 11 reads as follows :

"If the lessee commits breach of any of the terms of the tenancy, the lease shall automatically stand terminated and the lessor shall be allowed to take possession of the demised premises without any prior notice in writing which otherwise by law the lessor may be bound to give to the lessee."

6. The plaintiff filed the first suit (RSC No. 73/1980) with the allegations that on or about 13.9.1978 the defendant No. 1 and her husband had submitted to the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat of Calangute their application for permission for reconstruction of the residential house with a plan of construction which was altogether different from the plan consented and approved by the plaintiff and in this plan they showed a construction of 5 rooms with elevated first floor and many other things which were not approved and consented by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was that the behaviour of the defendants amounted to breach of contract, as the defendant carried out in the building, without permission in writing from the plaintiff, works which altered its external structure and did internal work of its division which were not justified. The plaintiff, therefore, stated that the plaintiff was entitled to terminate the said tenancy and evict the defendant from the suit property as per the law in force and in terms of the said condition No. 11 of the said Lease Deed dated 24.9.1976.

7. The defendant/s contested the suit by stating that the improvements, additions and alterations mentioned in subsequent part of said Clause 9 were not restricted to the repairs, additions and alterations shown in the plan Exh. B of the said Deed. The defendants denied that by virtue of the said condition No. 9 the first defendant was only allowed to make demolitions inside the house, to carry on some repairs and make some repairs of the portions marked in the plan by letters A and B. The defendant/s further stated that the plan appended to the said Deed of Lease only represented the repairs, additions and alterations as were necessary and/or envisaged on the date of the said Deed of Lease. The defendants stated that Article 49(B) of the Decree No. 43.525 dated 7.3.1961 was subject to the contract to the contrary and that the said Deed of Lease dated 24.9.1976 constituted a consent in writing within the meaning of the said Article 49(B) of the Decree. The defendant/s stated that defendant No. 1 was entitled to retain the poss