JUDGMENT :- The present appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for ejectment from the ahata in suit after demolition of the constructions made by the defendant. The disputed ahata is owned by the plaintiff-appellant. By a registered deed of agreement dated 11th January, 1952, the plaintiff let out the said ahata on an annual rent of Rs. 150/- to the defendant for a period of three years, commencing from 12th November, 1951 to 11th November, 1954. It was let out to the defendant for establishing a cotton machine and a flour mill. It was stipulated between the parties that on the expiry of the term of the lease, the defendant would hand over possession to the plaintiff and no notice to quit would be necessary. It was further stipulated that the defendant might make any new construction or place chappar or make any additions or alterations according to his needs and requirements, but, after the expiry of the term of the lease, the defendant would restore the premises to its original condition and would hand over the same to the plaintiff after removing his materials. But on the expiry of the term of the lease, the defendant did not vacate the premises as stipulated. The plaintiff, therefore, sent a composite notice of demand and quit to the defendant and, thereafter, filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment, which was, later on, numbered as Suit No. 444 of 1956. The Court, however, dismissed the suit few ejectment and decreed it only for the recovery of arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had made additions and alterations in the suit premises after the expiry of the period of lease inasmuch as he installed a paddy crushing machine and kolhu without any prior permission of the plaintiff. The defendant thus used the premises for inconsistent purposes. During the pendency of the suit, he has replaced the kolhu by an oil expeller on 10th April, 1962. According to the plaintiff, the vibration of the additional machines adversely affected the premises and the same amounted to nuisance. The plaintiff, after serving a notice of termination on the defendant, filed the present suit.

2. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant. His stand was that the additions and alterations were made at a cost of Rs. 1,000/- with the consent of the plaintiff, who had agreed to adjust the said amount in the rent, but he did not adjust the amount and had falsely instituted the suit. It was further alleged that the suit premises was taken for manufacturing purposes and so the defendant was legally entitled to instal the paddy crushing machine and the Kolhu. The notice served by the plaintiff on the defendant was invalid.

3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that though the premises was let out for manufacturing purposes, a restriction was placed in the lease deed to run only flour mill and cotton machine and the installation of the rice crushing machine, kolhu and oil expeller was inconsistent with the use of the premises for which it bad been let out. It was also alleged that the additions and alterations in the suit premises did not cause any substantial damage nor did they create any nuisance and that the tenancy of the defendant had been validly terminated by the plaintiff. On these findings, the suit was decreed by the trial Court.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement of the trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal, the defendant moved an application on 12th February, 1964, for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the plea that the suit was barred under O.2, R.2, Civil P.C. The application was hotly contested by the plaintiff, but the Additional Civil Judge allowed the application and remanded the case to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh. The plaintiff came up in appeal to ibis Court against that order, which was allowed by this Court and the order of remand was set aside and the Additional Civil Judg