JUDGMENT :

S.H. SHETH, J.

1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering possession of the suit premises which consist of a shop. He alleges three grounds : (1) defendant No. 1 has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to defendants nos. 2, 3 and 4 ; (2) defendant No. 1 has constructed a partition wall which is a permanent structure within the meaning of section 13(l)(b) and (3) he has committed acts injurious to the suit premises.

2. The defendants denied sub-letting and commission of acts injurious to the suit property. They admitted that they have constructed it partition wall.

3. The learned Trial Judge found that defendant No. 1 has not sublet the suit premises to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, that defendant No. 1 has constructed a partition wall by which he has divided the suit shop into two parts and that he had dug fire-pits and removed the existing partition wall and that both of them are such alterations as would not be removable without causing serious damage to the suit premises. In that view of the matter the learned Trial Judge passed against the defendants a decree for possession.

4. Defendants Nos. 1 and 4 appealed against that decree to the D