V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. By this common judgment both the revision petitions, namely Civil Revision Nos.458 and 457 of 1986 can conveniently be dispose of together. The question involved in both the petitions is identical.

2. The revision petitions have been filed by Onkar (hereinafter described as the petitioner). The petitioner had filed both the petitions for eviction with respect to shop Nos.6 and 7 in Babu Ram Market, Garh Bazar. Ballabgarh asserting that rent had been settled at Rs.200/- P.M. The ejectment of the respondent was claimed on the ground of non payment of rent and impairment of value and utility of the premises. It had been asserted that respondent has removed the intervening wall and has constructed the two shops into one. The entire arrears of rent had been tendered on the first date of hearing as claimed. Regarding it no controversy had been raised in this Court. Therefore, the sole controversy was if the respondent by his act and conduct has impaired the value and utility of the premises in question.

3. The respondent contended that petitioner is guilty of splitting the tenancy and has filed the petition only with respect to part of the premises. It is a co