Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated January 17, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in S. A. No.
Both the trial Judge and in appeal against his judgment and decree the First Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, companycurrently found that the respondent had carried out alterations, that he did so without obtaining the companysent of the appellants and that the alterations companysisted of lowering of the floor level of the shop by about 11/2 ft.
Thereupon the appellants first by a telegram and then by letters called upon the respondent to refrain from making the said alterations as such alterations were companytrary to the express companyenant companytained in the said rent numbere.
T. Desai and J. P. Goyal, for the respondent.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Civil Judge, the respondent filed a Second Appeal in the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.
There is numberdispute that about the middle of October 1954 the respondent started making altera tions in the said shop without the companysent of the appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
930 of 1959.
On July 21, 1954 the respondent executed a rent numbere by which he inter alia agreed that he would number have any right to make any alterations, additions, or Tor phor of any sort in the said shop.
On August 8, 1954, the appellants at the request of the respondent removed the said partition wall and replaced the said arch by iron girders enabling the respondent to have a companypact and companymodious unit.
The said Banarsidas vacated the shop and thereupon with the necessary sanction of the Rent Control Officer it was let out to the respondents as from July 24, 1,954.
Ultimately by a numberice dated February 22, 1955 they terminated the said tenancy and called upon the respondent to hand over quiet and vacant possession.
643 of 1964.
Both the companyrts found that these alterations were material alterations of the accommodation within the meaning of s. 3 1 c and held that the appellants were entitled to file the suit without obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate and to a decree of eviction.
The appellants are the owners of a building situate on Dashaswamedh Road in Varanasi, the ground floor of which companysisted of two shops separated by a partition wall and an arch in between.
The other shop, adjacent to the respondents shop, had been let out to one Benarsidas Lohar.
by excavating earth therefrom and putting up a new floor, of lowering companyrespondingly the front door which entailed cutting and removal of the plinthband on which the door rested, of lowering likewise the level of the staircase in the shop .and putting up new steps thereto and lastly of lowering the height of the Chabutra outside the shop so as to companyrespond if to the level of the new ground floor of the shop.
The respondent took possession of the said shop thus becoming a tenant of both the shops.
The respondent was the tenant of one of these two shops.
B. Agarwala, Champat Rai, E.C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellants.
90 of 1959.
