Minor alterations and temporary structures do not amount to material impairment of the value and utility of a building.

J.S.Sekhon, J.

1. The tenant has directed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act) against the order dated 3.3.1980 of the learned Appellate Authority, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the order of the Rent Controller qua ejectment of the tenant on the ground of having materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Shri Vasdev, landlord of the factory premises located in plot No. 196, Industrial Area, Ludhiana, had rented out one machinery hall measuring 36 x 21 along with one electric moter of 5 H.P., patta, pulleys, shaft, iron girders, ball bearings besides one office room measuring 10 x 12 to M/s. Bhatia Cloth Mills at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The landlord sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 1.5.1971 and on the ground of tenant materially impairing the value and utility of the building by constructing two parchhatis in the room after digging two holes in the wall. He also alleged that one big hole was dug in the hall of the room. This application was resisted by the tenant by tendering the arrears of rent etc. on the first date of hearing. On merits it was alleged that the parchhatis etc. were already in existence from the very inception of the tenancy. In replication filed by the landlord, further allegation was levelled against the tenant of having installed on 8 H.P. oil engine in the main hall besides digging another hole in the wall for serving as outlet for the exhaust pipe of the oil engine. It was further contended that the working of the oil engine was also causing damage to the premises in dispute and materially impaired its value and utility.

2. The learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of material impairment in the value and utility of the building due to construction of the above referred parchhatis and the digging of holes etc. The learned Appellate Authority vide its impugned order also confirmed the above referred findings of the learned Rent Controller.

3. Mr. G.C. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the above referred construction of parchhatis after digging holes or installation of an oil engine even if assumed is have been done by the tenant, was not sufficient for holding that it had resulted in impairing the value and utility of the building which was let out for running a factory and an office. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of this High Court in Suchha Singh Kabari v. Brij Lal, 1980(1) Rent Law Reporter 124, Gobind Ram v. Shrimati Kauashalya Rani and others, 1981(2) RCR 621 : 1982(1) Rent Law Reporter 288, Roshan Lal v. Dharam Pal, 1984(2) RCR 421, Om Parkash v. Amar Singh and another, 1987(1) RCR 326 : AIR 1987 Supreme Court 617 (1987 HRR 220) and Brijandra Nath Bhargava and another v. Harsh Wardhan and others, 1988(1) Rent Law Reporter 228.

4. Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the landlord on the other hand raised preliminary objection about limited scope of this Court while exercising jurisdiction on revisional side. He further maintained that the concurrent findings of both the lower courts are supported from the observation of this High Court in Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh and another, 1976 Punjab Law Reporter 750 and Om Pal v. Shri Anand Swarup 1980(2) RCR 720 : 1980(2) Indian Rent Control Journal 729.

5. The law is well settled on point that where finding of fact arrived was at by the lower courts by omitting to consider material evidence as well as drawing wrong inferences, the High Court on revisional side had ample jurisdiction to interfere with such findings. In the present case also, the learned counsel for the petitioner had not assailed the finding of the lower courts on facts but had cont