Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.)This revision petition has been filed by Om Parkash landlord against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, dated lst Oct., 1976.
The landlord filed an application against Fattu Ram tenant for ejectment under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, inter alia, on the grounds that the latter had changed the user of the demised shop, that he had broken the cemented floor and constructed a Bhatti and a reservoir, and that he was a man of quarrelsome nature and had become a nuisance for the neighbours.

(2.)The application was contested by the tenant who controverted ..the allegation, of the applicant. The learned Rent Controller held that the tenant had made material alterations by constructing a Bhatti and a reservoir and that he was a nuisance to the landlord. Consequently, he ordered his ejectment. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed all the aforesaid findings and dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlord has come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority to this Court.
(3.)It is contended by the learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner that the shop was let for the purposes of running a groceries shop whereas the tenant started using it as a tea-stall. He further urges that the tenant had constructed a Bhatti and a reservoir in the shop. According to him, the tenant had thus materially deteriorated the value and utility of the shop.