The permanent closing of a window with bricks, without the permission of the landlord, can be considered a material alteration under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, if it diminishes the value of the shop and substantially alters its structure.

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 broken the today of the pillars of the shop. The learned Additional District Judge then observed: “These constructions cannot be said to be in the nature of fittings or fixtures made by the tenant for its ordinary purpose. The other two alterations, that is, fixing of the show-cause by removing the iron bars and breaking of the floor may at the best be said to be not material alterations, but the alterations made by the defendant in the disputed shop by which he has closed the window in the western wall and he has broken the today of the plaintiffs’ shop amounts to material alterations made in the rented shop, and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to get eviction on this ground also as defined in Clause (c) of Section 13 (1) of the Act.”

4. The tenant admitted in his written statement that he closed the western window of the demised shop by covering it with bricks because foul smell from latrine, powder of wood and drops of water entered through that window. He further admitted that he removed the iron bars of the window fixed in the eastern wall of the demised shop and fixed glass show-case therein. He, however, stated that these alterations as also other alterations were made with the permission of the plaintiffs. The learned Additional District Judge has held that no permission was sought from the plaintiffs for any of the alterations made by the defendant. This is a finding of fact and I find no justification for interference with that finding.

5. The main question that calls for determination in this appeal is whether the permanent closing of the western window with bricks, in the circumstances of the case, is a material alteration within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act which reads as under:--“Section 13--Eviction of tenant--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order in favour of a landlord, whether in decree or otherwise evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied

.(a) xx xx xx

.(b) xx xx xx

.(c) that the tenant has without the permission of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction as, in the opinion of the Court, has materially altered the premises or is likely to diminish the value thereof” It is that Clause (c) of Section 13 (1) of the Act will be attracted (1) when the tenant makes any construction without the permission of the landlord in the demised premises and (2) when such construction has materially altered the premises or is likely to diminish the value thereof In the present case, the tenant has undoubtedly closed the western window with bricks without the permission of the plaintiff-landlords. This is certainly a construction in the de