Removal of a Pardi wall, which is a brick partition wall, so as to open a gate, does not amount to making construction which materially alters the premises.

1. - This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Bhilwara, confirming the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, Bhilwara according the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated, are as follows :

3. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for rent and ejectment against the appellant-defendant on several grounds. The suit was contented by the appellant and after framing number of issues and recording the evidence, and trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the tenant had, without the permission of the landlord made such constructions which have materially altered the premises as mentioned in Section 13(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The learned District Judge also found that the defendant had made constructions without the permission of the landlord which has materially altered the premises and hence, confirmed the decree. Hence, this appeal.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and has also perused the record of the case. Plaintiff in his plaint in para 4 has asserted that the defendant in violation of the conditions of the rent note has opened a new gate towards the chowk by removing the Tati. Para 4 of the plaint runs as under:

";g izfroknh us mDr fdjk;k fpV~Bh dh 'krksZa dh vogsyuk dh gS vkSj f[kykQ fdjk;k fpV~Bh dk;Z fd;k gSA izfroknh us oknh dh fcuk Lohd`fr nqdku ds vUnj dh rjQ ,d tnksn r;k njoktk pkSd dh rjQ QksM+ fn;k gS tks mls QksM+us dk vf/kdkj ugh gSA o vkSj Hkh ,fM+'kuy vkyV~s'ku fd, gS tks izfroknh dks djus dk dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj ugh gSA"

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that mere violation of any condition of the rent note is not a ground of eviction. He has further submitted that the plaintiff in his plaint no where mentioned that the opening of a gate amounts to material alteration. He has further submitted that mere removal of Tati i.e. a Pardi wall of brick does not amount to making construction so as to materially alter the premises and he has placed reliance on Raghunath Singh v. Balabux 1975 WLN 427 and Kesardas v. Harish Chandra Vyas 1979 RLW 201 .

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent has vehemently submitted that there is no substantial question of law in this appeal and the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. He has further submitted that both the courts below have decided the case in a correct perspective and, therefore, no interference should be made. He has placed reliance on Khinav Ram v. Lakhi Prasad 1964 RLW 213 and Manmohandas v. Bishundas, AIR 1967 SC 643 and Kishanlal v. Rambaboo 1971 Rent Control Journal 95 .

7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the defendant-tenant-appellant has removed a Pardi wall of bricks on the back portion of the shop so as to make an entry from behind the shop to his residential portion which is also in his tenancy. At the stage of evidence, he has tried to produce evidence that this was done with the permission of the landlord but both the Courts below have comet to a finding that defendant-appellant had not taken any permission from the landlord for removing the wall and in second appeal, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact based on appreciation evidence and hold that tenant had not taken permission of the landlords for removing the Pardi wall. Para 4 of the plaint which has been quoted above shows that the complaint of the plaintiff was that the defendant has broken open door inside the wall in contravention of the terms of of the rent note and that he has also made some additions and alterations for which the defendant was not entitled. The plaint was later on amended and paragraph 4A wa