S.N. Modi, J.-This is a tenant’s second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction from a shop.

2. Thesuit was based on three grounds, namely, (1) defaults in payment of rent, (2) reasonable and bona fide necessity and (3) material alterations in the suit premises. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff-respondents, the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur, decreed the suit on two grounds, firstly, that the suit shop was required by the plaintiffs reasonably and bona fide for running a restaurant and secondly, that the tenant has made material alterations within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Kent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Hence this appeal by the tenant.

3. Thelearned Additional District Judge recorded the finding that the tenant made the following alterations in the demised shop without the permission of the plaintiffs: (1) He has closed the door (window) in the, western wall of the disputed shop, (ii) he has removed the iron bars of the window on the eastern wall and fixed the glass window instead of it, (iii) he has broken the floor of the shop and (iv) he has broke