The central legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for eviction based on personal bona fide necessity remain valid even if the persons for whose need the eviction is sought have joined services. The judgment also emphasizes the provision allowing the tenant to take possession back from the landlord if the premises are not used for the purpose for which the eviction decree is sought.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant is aggrieved against the eviction decree of the trial Court dated 22.08.1984 which was upheld by the first appellate Court vide Judgment and decree dated 11.05.1988.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant on the ground that the appellant is tenant in one of the shops of the plaintiff where the plaintiff wants to settle his two sons who are pursuing their medical courses in medical college for becoming doctor. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant materially altered the premises, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for eviction of the tenant. Issue for committing default by the tenant was also there.

The trial Court, however, decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of personal bona fide necessity after considering the plea of the defendant about completion of studies by plaintiff’s sons and their joining services at different places. The trial Court also held that the defendant materially altered the suit premises and, therefore, on this ground alone, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction.

4. The appellate Court upheld the finding of the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal.

5. The appeal was admitted by the order of this Court dated 12.07.1988 but without framing any substantial question of law. While admitting, this Court observed that the appellant has moved three applications viz., one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, another under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, and the third one for permission to urge additional grounds in appeal.

6. Second appeal can be admitted only if substantial question of law is involved and since the appeal has been admitted without framing substantial question of law, therefore, to find out whether any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, the appeal is heard.

7. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of appellant on the ground of personal bona fide necessity and with allegation of material alteration. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, even if all the allegations levelled by the plaintiff against the appellant of making changes in the suit premises are accepted to be true, even then, that does not constitute material alteration in the suit premises. The only allegation against the defendant is that he has constructed one Duchati (mezzanine floor) by putting an iron gurder within the shop in dispute and in view of various Judgment s of the Hon’ble Apex Court followed by this Court, temporary construction of Duchati cannot amount to material alteration in the suit premises.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant also vehemently submitted that the plaintiff filed suit for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide necessity with a plea that the plaintiff’s sons were studying in the medical college and after completion of their studies, they would start their medical clinic in the suit shop. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff’s sons completed their medical course and became doctors and thereafter, they joined the Government services and that too not in Sri Ganganagar where the shop in dispute is situated but in different States. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff’s sons are well settled and they cannot do their private practice by running a clinic while in service. It is also submitted that after the decision of the trial Court and appellate Court, the appellant came to know that an open space of 10 feet x 22 feet has come into possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, the need of the plaintiff can be satisfied from the said open space. For this, the appellant has submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, in second appeal before this Court. The appellant in the said application also sought permission to incorporate said plea of the defendant as well as wanted to include few facts relating to employment of plain