The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenants are bound by the conditions mentioned in the lease agreement, and material alterations in the premises can lead to eviction.

Prakash Tatia, J.-The appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 05.09.2003 by which the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the respondent/tenant for eviction and also aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 06.04.2005 by which the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant/tenant.

2. It will be appropriate to narrate the facts of the case because of the reason that it is third round of litigation between the landlord and tenant.

3. First Suit No. 59/1975 was filed by landlord Mohan Das against his original tenant Kalu Singh wherein ultimately, the matter was settled between the parties and the rent of suit shop was increased form Rs. 18/-to Rs. 40/-per month.

4. Second Suit No. 252/1991 was filed by landlord for eviction of tenant only on the ground of non-payment of rent.

5. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that even during pendency of First Suit No 59/1975, original tenant Kalu Singh died and his son Madan Singh, present appellant, was impleaded as party who entered into compromise and agreed to increase the rent from RS. 18/-to Rs. 40/-per month.

6. In the Second Suit also, the present appellate alone was party. During pendency of Second Suit No. 252/1991, landlord deceased Mohan Das filed the Third Suit No. 42/1999 against the present appellant on the grounds of material alteration in part of the leased property and on the ground of change of user as well as for parting with possession of the suit premises i.e. parties with one Chabootari by present tenant Madan Singh.

7. It is statedthat Second Suit No. 252/1991 since was only on the ground of default and it was not contested, therefore, in second suit, the Court gave benefit of first default to the tenant and thereafter dismissed the suit so far as relief of eviction is concerned.

8. As stated above, before decision of Second Suit No. 252/1991, the plaintiff filed the present Suit No. 42/1999 for eviction on the grounds mentioned above.

9. Thedefendants plea was that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2, CPC because of the reason that the alleged all events took place before filing of the Second Suit No. 252/1991 and the plaintiff therein did not choose to take the grounds against the defendant for eviction on the grounds which are now taken in the subsequently filed suit. It is also submitted that in view of Suit No. 252/1991 decided on 05.09.1994, the present suit is barred by principles of res-judicata. It was also submitted that the suit is not maintainable for want of necessary party.

10. On merits, it was contended that the defendant did not change the user of the premises nor has made any alteration. It is also submitted that the allegation against the tenant is that he removed Kelu roof and replaced it by cement sheets. It is also submitted that this does not amount to material alteration in the suit property.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that mere change of small portion of rented premises is not change of user of premises as a ground of eviction under the provisions of Rent Control Act and according to learned Counsel for the appellant, this view find supports from the Judgment of the Honble Apex Court delivered in the case of Prem Chand vs. The District Judge, Dehradun and Another reported in AIR 1977 SC 364 and from the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana Court delivered in the case of Hira Lal vs. Hav. Kirpa Ram reported in 1977 (2) RCR 352.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that in the original lease contract reduced in writing by executing rent deed dated 03.01.1967, both the parties i.e. lessor and lessee agreed that on the chabootari, tenant shall have right to construct shop with a restriction that he will not do the business of liquor in that shop. It is further submitted that the said tenancy was not surrendered by Kalu Singh or his legal representatives including the appellant and, the