BHARGAVA, J.—This is a defendants appeal in a suit for eviction.

2. Plaintiffs case was that a Chabutra with a tin shed over it was rented out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2/-. It was alleged that the defendant had made defaults in the payment of rent for five months i.e., from Sawan Badi 11 to Poh Badi 11, Smt. 2016. It was also alleged that he had raised the height of the tin shed and had closed the chabutra by fixing doors fitted in a wooden frame without his permission and in contravention of the terms of the lease. On these grounds the plaintiff sought defendants eviction from the disputed premises.

3. The defendant contested the suit. He admitted the tenancy only over eastern half portion of the chabutra at an annual rent of Rs. 24/- and stated that the remaining part was in occupation of his son. He also admitted the raising of the height of the tin shed and the fixing of doors with the permission of Gopiram plaintiffs agent. Objection was also raised with regard to the validity of the notice determining his tenancy.

4. Both the courts below have found that the defendant had made such constructions as have materially altered the premises. The trial court also held that the notice determining the tenancy was valid though the learned District Judge has not expressed any opinion on this point.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions:

1. that the suit was not based on the ground referred in section 13 (1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. that the raising the height of the tin shed and fixing of doors in a wooden frame had not materially altered the premises.

3. that the notice determining the tenancy was not in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

6. As regards the first contention,though it may be technically true that in the plaint it was not stated precisely that the alleged constructions had materially altered the premises yet the constructions made by the defendant were clearly described in the plaint and it was alleged that it had been done unauthorisedly without the permission of the plaintiff. Both the parties also led evidence regarding the nature of constructions and the courts below have recorded their finding holding that the said constructions have materially altered the premises. Therefore when facts necessary to establish that material alterations had been made in the premises by the defendant, had been stated in the plaint though its legal effect was not stated and no prejudice has been caused to the defendant on this ground, it would not be right to non-suit the plaintiff on this technical objection. I, therefore, do not see any force in this contention.

7. The second contention raises the question as regards the interpretation of material alteration of the premises as used in section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Section 13(1)(c) of the Act reads as follows :—

"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."

In order to satisfy the requirements of the above clause, it is necessary to prove that:

1. the tenant has made or permitted to be made constructions in the premises.

2. such constructions have been made without the permission of the landlord, and

3. they have materially altered the premises or is likely to diminish the value thereof.

8. There is no dispute now in the present case that constructions in the premises have been made by the defendant without the permission of the landlord. The only question which requires determination is whether the alleged constructions have materially altered the premises or have diminished its value. The word or occurring after the word premises in the above clause has been used in disjunctive sense and not in conjunctive sense. It is well settled rule of interpr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document