C. R. No. 69 OF 2008. ****** Present : Mr.K.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. ******* Challenge in this revision petition is to the ejectment order, dated 9.6.2005, passed by the Rent Controller, Nawanshahr, as also to the order dated 24.1.2007, passed by the appellate authority, Nawanshahar, dismissing the appeal, filed by the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not effected any change in the premises in dispute. The shop exists in the same state as it was on the date it was rented out to the original tenant. It is asserted that the petitioners are heirs of the original tenant and, therefore, their ejectment from the premises would deprive them of their only source of livelihood. The findings, returned by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, are perverse and contrary to the evidence adduced. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. The petitioners' ejectment has been ordered on the ground that they have effected additions and alterations, which have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. A perusal of the impugned orders discloses that the landlord led cogent evidence to establish that the petitioners had removed the wall between the two rooms that originally comprised the demised premises and had raised the level of the roof of the building by installing iron shutters, new wooden battons and girders. In essence, the petitioners have re-constructed the entire building. The aforementioned evidence is supported by the deposition of an expert, CR No.69 of 2008 : 2 : namely, Vikas Chopra, Civil Engineer. The correctness of his report Ex.A1, accompanied by the site plan, Ex.A2, was accepted by both the learned Rent Controller, as also by the appellate authority. The assertions of counsel for the petitioners that additions and alterations were not effected by the petitioners cannot be accepted, as from the inception of the tenancy, the petitioners have been in exclusive possession of the premises, to the exclusion of all else. The Courts below have concurrently held the petitioners responsible for effecting additions and alterations in the demised premises and, therefore, materially impairing the value and utility thereof. The findings of fact, returned by the learned Rent Controller, as also by the Appellate Authority, do not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction. The present petition is dismissed in limine. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) January 09, 2008. JUDGE `kk'