JUDGMENT

O.P. Trivedi, J. - These are two connected appeals and arise from the saml judgment dated 20-1-1968 passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Unnao, affirming the judgments and decrees of the Munsif (North), Lucknow. As the two appeals raise common questions they may be conveniently disposed of by the same judgment. The facts briefly are : Noor Jahan Begum deceased wife of Mirza Jehan Shah alias Laddan Saheb filed suit which was registered as suit No. 146 of 1966 in the Court of the Munsif (North), Lucknow, against the present appellant Mohd. Farooq with the allegations that Mohd. Farooq is a tenant of the plaintiff Noor Jehan Begam in the disputed house, situate in Mohalla Astabal Charbagh, in the city of Lucknow, on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. He had, contrary to the terms of the tenancy and without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, illegally demolished certain portions of the house and made unauthorised additions and alteration in the house, the subject- matter of the tenancy, which had materially and substantially changed the house. The plaintiff claimed to have terminated the defendant's tenancy through a registered notice dated 9-2-1966 served on the defendant, but the defendant in spite of service of the notice had failed to vacate the houses. On these allegations a decree for ejectment was claimed against the defendant from the disputed house in this suit.

2. Mohd. Farooq denied that he is the tenant of Noor Jahan Begum, plaintiff of the suit and asserted that he is the tenant of her husband Mirza Jahan Shah alias Laddan Saheb who, according to him had let him in possession of the house. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that the contract of tenancy in respect of the disputed house took place between the defendant Mohd. Farooq and the said Mirza Jahan Shah and that there was no privity of contract between the parties. The maintainability of the suit was on that ground called into question. The impugned constructions were claimed to have been put up with the permission and consent of Mirza Jahan Shah and the same were said to he of a purely temporary character. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

(1) Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? If so its effect ?

(2) Whether the defendant has caused material alterations ? If so, its effect (3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

3. Noor Jahan Begum had filed another suit against the defendant-appellant in the same court in respect of this house for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making constructions or demolition, addition or alteration in the house on the basis of the above allegations. In that suit also the defence of Mohd. Farooq was on the above lines. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted on the ground that she, not being the landlord of the defendant, had no right to a decree and that in any case the constructions being of a temporary character and put up with the approval of the landlord Laddan Saheb, there was no question of injunction. This suit was registered as suit No. 26 of 1966 by the Munsif. In that suit the following three issues were framed by the trial court :

(1) Whether the plaintiff is the landlord and has a right to sue ?

(2) Whether the suit has become infructuous ?

(3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

4. On the first issue of the two suits which involved a common question the finding of the Munsif was that according to the admissions made during the trial by both the parties, Mirza Jahan Shah was the original owner of the disputed house, was proved to have transferred the house in favour of his wife Smt. Noor Jahan Begum, the deceased plaintiff, in the year 1956. On the basis of this transfer the Munsif held that the plaintiff became the landlord of the defendant in respect of the house and thereby relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties. There was