Rajendera Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendant against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated November 5, 1974
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that Kesar Singh and Tersem Singh are the owners of two shoos situated in Banga District Jullundur. They leased out the shops to Kartar Singh tenant on a rent of Rs. (sic) P.M. each. It is alleged that the tenant made the following additions and alterations in the shops without the permission of the landlords : - - (1) He has demolished the partition wall of the front rooms of the shops thus turning the two shops into one. (ii) He has likewise made an opening in partition wall of rooms behind the front room (iii) He has removed the "Chaukhats" and "takhtas" of the four doors shown in red in the appended plan (iv) He has included the verandah in the front room and has fixed a shutter on one of the doors of the verandah and a tin door on the other 2. They consequently filed a petition for his ejectment on the ground that he had made such changes which had impaired materially the utility of the building and consequently he was liable to ejectment. The application was contested by the tenant mainly on two grounds, namely, that the same had been made with the consent of the landlords and secondly that these have not impaired materially the utility of the building. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the structural changes were made in the shops without the consent of the landlords which had impaired the utility of the building materially Consequently, he ordered his ejectment. He went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. Jullundur, who affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. He has now come in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority to this Court.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alterations had been made with the consent of the landlords and consequently they cannot say that the tenant was liable to be ejected on that ground (sic) ret my inability to accept the contention. Both the Courts after taking into consideration the evidence, have held that the alterations have not been made with the consent of the landlords. I have also been taken through the evidence both oral as well as documental and find that there are to grounds to interfere with the concurrent finding arrived at by too authorities below I, consequently, reject the contention of the learned counsel.;