- (1.) The Revision petition seeks to impugn the orders of the two Authorities below by means of which the application of the petitioner -landlord for eviction of the respondent from a shop at Ludhiana was rejected. The petitioner had raised various grounds for the eviction of the tenant. The first ground was nonpayment of arrears of rent, but this ground was set at naught by the prompt tender of arrears and costs etc. on the first date of hearing. The second ground for ejectment was that the respondent was guilty of causing nuisance to the people residing in the neighbourhood by doing spray painting work in the premises. The courts below did not accept this ground for the reason that the witnesses produced in proof of this allegation were not residents of the neighbourhood and this is a reasonable approach to the matter. The last ground for ejectment was t hat the respondent had constructed a parchhatti, in the shop by placing some wooden phatties (planks) on two bales which were struck up in the walls of the shop. The courts below came to the conclusion that this was merely a temporary construction which could be easily removed by a nominal expenditure. It is well-settled that a mere temporary construction of this nature does not give rise to the presumption that the value and utility of the building has been materially impaired. In fact, the petitioner did not examine any expert in this behalf and his word of mouth on the point has rightly been ignored.
(2.) The Revision Petition is without merit and is consequently dismissed, but with no order as to costs.;