JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari and is directed against the Appellate order under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioners are the tenants who have been ordered to be evicted. 2. The landlord opposite party No. 1 applied for eviction of the Petitioners on the ground that the tenants were defaulters, the lease-hold has been materially altered by the tenants without the land-lords consent and that the lease-hold was necessary for the bona fide occupation of the landlord. The tenants disputed the allegations that they were defaulters and also denied the assertion of the landlord that he was in bona fide need of the house for personal occupation. They admitted that in 1962, a part of the premises was gutted by fire and they had replaced the burnt portion by pucca walls and had put corrugated sheets in place of thatch. 3. The learned Controller negatived the plea of the land lord that the tenants were defaulters. But he accepted the other two grounds and directed eviction. Upon appeal by the tenants the learned Appellate authority came to hold that personal requirement of the landlord had not been established. He, however, sustained the order of eviction on the residuary ground that the lease-hold had been substantially altered. 4. Mr. Mohapatra for the Petitioners contends that on the finding of the Appellate authority regarding material alteration, the landlord could not have succeeded to evict the Petitioners. There does not seem to be any dispute that when a portion of the house was gutted by fire, the tenants re-constructed it by raising pucca walls in place of kutcha walls and by putting a tin roof in place of thatch. Mr. Mohapatra contends that the re-construction amounted to an improvement and in the absence of a categorical finding that the tenants had committed any act of damage as was likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house as provided u/s 7(2)(iii) of the Act, there could be no order for eviction. It is next contended that reliance in the Supreme Court decision Babu Manmohan Das Shah and Others Vs. It is next contended that reliance in the Supreme Court decision Babu Manmohan Das Shah and Others Vs. Bishun Das was not justified in view of the fact that the provision with reference to which the Supreme Court decided the matter was to the effect that "the tenant has, without the permission in writing of the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such construction as, in the opinion of the Court, has materially altered or is likely substantially to diminish its value". There seems to be difference in the provision which was construed by the Supreme Court and the relevant provision under the Orissa House Rent Control Act. 5. Mr. Murty for the landlord-opposite party contended that the Controller had given a clear finding that the house had been divided into three and each of the brothers (Petitioners) was using a part of it. This certainly, according to Mr. Murty, amounted to imparing the utility of the house. As we find there has been no such pointed attention devoted to the requirement of the Statute. Until it is found that the tenant has committed acts of damage as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house, an order of eviction cannot be made. The requisite finding has not been given. We think it appropriate, therefore, to quash the Appellate order and remit the matter to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) for recording a finding as to whether the tenants have committed such acts of damage as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house. If he records such a finding, the tenants are liable to be evicted; otherwise the landlord's petition for eviction has got to be dismissed. We made no order as to costs. K.B. Panda, J. 6. I agree.