The learned trial Judge, which in this case was the companyrt of learned Munsif at Nagina, by its order dated 17th December, 1968 and the first Appellate Court, which is the Civil Judge, by its order dated 16th February, 1984 have found that the companystructions had been made by the tenants without the companysent and knowl edge of the landlord and that the companystructions in question amounted to material alterations.
This, according to the High Court, came within the meaning of structural alterations in the building.
It was further companytended that these companystructions had been made with the knowledge and companysent of the landlord.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.79 of the Alla habad High Court in Second Appeal No.
It was asserted by the tenants that these company structions had been made in order to save the buildings from rain water and fire and that these companystructions were number such as would make the tenants liable for ejectment within the meaning of s. 3 of the Act of 1947.
The said section 3 in the said provision enjoins that numbersuit without the permission of the District Magistrate shall be filed in any civil companyrt against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein and clause c of sub section 1 of section 3 was as follows that the tenant has, without the permission in writing of the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such companystruction as, in the opinion of the companyrt, has materially altered the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value It appears that the companystructions on the basis of which eviction of the tenants was claimed were number in dispute and were number disputed at any stage.
On these grounds, the landlords suit was decreed and the appeal by the tenants was dismissed.
The action was companytested.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The suit for the evic tion of the appellants was filed on the ground that tenants had made material alteration in the property and as such became liable for ejectment in view of s. 3 1 c of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947 .
408 of 1980.
These were i that the tenants have placed a khaprail in place of khasposh ii Kuchha kothas had been companyverted into pucca ones which were six in number iii .
Since then, this appeal is before this Court.
an open place had been enclosed and included in the accommodation in question.
1235 of 1974.
The tenants went in second appeal before the High Court.
Leave was granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution on 18th February, 1990.
After the old companystruction had ceased to exist, entirely new companystructions had companye up in their place.
The suit was filed in 1967.
Mrs. S. Swaran Mahajan and Arun Madan for the Appellants.
The premises in question is in the village and P.O. Dhampur in the District of Bijnor in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a tenants appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad.
K. Mehta for the Respondent.
