KAN SINGH, J.—This is a tenants second appeal directed against the appellate decree for eviction by the learned Civil Judge, Beawar and raises the point whether a tenant has or has not made any material alteration within the meaning of sec. 13(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, is a question of law or one of fact or both. It arises in the following circumstances.

2. The plaintiff-respondent sought the eviction of the tenant on three grounds: (1) of bona fide personal necessity, (2) default in payment of rent, and (3) material alteration made by the tenant in the suit premises. The first court held against the landlord on the question of personal necessity and about the defaults in payment of rent but decreed the suit on the ground that the tenant had made material alterations in the suit premises. It was, inter alia, averred in the plaint that the defendant-tenant had closed the open Chabutri in front of the shop by a wooden partition and by making Pucka construction. According to he plaintiff, this was without his consent. In the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer, the only question that was argued was whether these wer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document