Honble GOYAL, J.–This second appeal by the defendants has arisen out of the following facts :-

(2). The plaintiff-respondent instituted a civil suit No. 188/1979 on 13.7.1979 for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that both the defendants (respectively father and son) are the tenants of the plaintiff respectively in shops No. 2 & 3 on monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Both of them carry on restaurant in the suit shops. Eviction was sought on the ground of material alterations made by the defendants without consent of the plaintiff.

(3). In their joint written statement having admitted tenancy, the details of alterations alleged in the plaint have been denied.

(4). On the basis of the pleadings, as many as five issues were framed. Evidence was recorded and vide judgment dated 13.9.1983 learned Additional Munsif, Sikar came to this conclusion that the plaintiff though failed to prove opening of any door in the common wall between two shops, proved remaining material alterations, hence decreed the suit for eviction.

(5). Both the plaintiff as well as the defendants preferred the first appeal and the cross objections respectively. Learned Additional District Judge, Sikar vide impugned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document