JUDGMENT L. Hmingliana Tochhawng, I. A. S.—This revision petition has been recommended under section 118 of Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred Act), by the learned Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 7-fc-73 to this court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner Shri Almu was recorded as non-occupancy tenant of the land under khaia number 50/91 min comprising khasra No. 84 measuring 5-15-5 bigha situated in village Kataula, Tehsil Sadar Mandi. The present respondent Mst. Parvati filed a suit under sections 54 and 55 of the Act for the ejectment of Shri Almu tenant-petitioner on the following ground: (i) That having been restrained by the landlord the tenant had constructed a house on the tenancy land and had thus rendered it unfit for the purpose for which it had been let out. (ii) That the tenant had not paid the full rent for the crop kharif 1966, inspite of repeated reminders. On the basis of plaint and written statement the following issues were framed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade : 1. Whether the defendant (present petitioner) has constructed a house on the old site and that he is liable to be ejected on this score ? O. P. D. 2. Whether the defendant (present petitioner) has paid the rent due for the period under dispute ? O. P. D. 3. n the event of issue No. 2 not being proved how much rent is to be paid to the owner ? O. P. P. 4. Relief. 3. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide his order dated 22-10-69 decided the issues in favour of Mst. Parvati landlord (present respondent) and held that Almu tenant (present petitioner) was liable to be ejected under section 54 (1) of the Act and also to pay Rs. 25/- on account of the rent due for kharif 1966. Being dissatisfied of this order Almu tenant filed an appeal before Collector who upheld the order of lower court and dismissed the appeal. It is against this, order the present revision petition was filed before the Divisional Commissioner who has recommended it for interference on the revisional side on the ground that the orders passed by the authorities below suffer .from inadequate appreciation of the circumstances of the case. 4. It is against this, order the present revision petition was filed before the Divisional Commissioner who has recommended it for interference on the revisional side on the ground that the orders passed by the authorities below suffer .from inadequate appreciation of the circumstances of the case. 4. I have heard Shri Almu petitioner alongwith his counsel Shri Amar Chand Sud. The respondent Mst. Parvati is not present inspite of service upon her and proceeded ex parte. The counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed on the recommendation made by the learned Divisional Commissioner and urged that his client is quite ready to pay the due amount of rent. 5. I have gone through this case file and those of the lower courts. From the careful study of the case files only two main points have come to light which require consideration : (1) Whether the tenant has paid the rent for Kharif 1966 ? (2) Whether the construction of a house by the tenant on tenancy / land is a valid ground for ejectment ? 6. So far as the first point is concerned, it is on the file that tenant had given the rent in the shape of maize weighing 60 Kg for kharif 1966 but the landlord did not carry it and kept it stored at the house of the tenant, where it spoiled after some time. The tenant is still ready to repay the entire due rent. 7. The second point whether the construction of a house on the tenancy land by the tenant is a valid ground for ejectment and does it render the land unfit for the purpose to which it was let out, needs proper thrashing. The relevant portion of section 54 of the Act reads" as under : "that he has used the land comprised in the tenancy in a manner which renders it unfit for the purposes for which he holds it." 8. Under this sub-section (a) a tenant can be ejected who has used the land comprised in the tenancy in a manner which renders it unfit for the purpose for which he holds it. In the present case Shri Almu was holding this land measuring 5-15-5 bighas as non-occupancy tenant for cultivation purpose on payment of rent equal to 1/4th of the total produce. In the present case Shri Almu was holding this land measuring 5-15-5 bighas as non-occupancy tenant for cultivation purpose on payment of rent equal to 1/4th of the total produce. According to the original plaint filed before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade the tenant has constructed house over 0-1-0 bigha without the consent of the landlord and thus has rendered the entire land unfit for cultivation. 9. In his written reply to the original plaint the tenant present petitioner bas stated that there was more than twenty years old shed (Chhan) on the tenancy land which had fallen and a new one has been built on that very site. This was issue No. 1 before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. From the perusal of discussion on issue No. 1 contained in the judgment of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and the evidence led by both the parties it is established that there did exist a shed (Chhan) on the tenancy land and upon its giving way house on that very site has been constructed. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was not fully clear whether there existed a shed (Chhan) on the site where the new house has been constructed. He felt satisfied only on this point that a house has been constructed on the tenancy land, which was not enough for him. The issue was not fully clear, still he decided it in favour of the landlord (Present respondent). 10. It is admitted that a house has been constructed on 0-2-0 bighas which is partly residential and partly used as cattle shed which is subservient to agriculture. The construction of a small house, in place of a ruined shed is in keeping pace with the present development age. It is essential and right of every free citizen to live and work in good shelter. By residing and keeping cattle near the agricultural land one can supervise property, put more mannure and labour and can increase the production which is beneficial to both landlord and tenant and a nation as a whole. It has not effected the tenancy in any way which tendered it unfit for cultivation purposes. 11. Keeping in view the above discussion I am of the opinion that house-cum-cattle-shed construction only on 0-2- biswa which is most subservient to agriculture has not effected adversely the cultivation of tenancy land measuring 5-15-5 bighas in any way. It has not effected the tenancy in any way which tendered it unfit for cultivation purposes. 11. Keeping in view the above discussion I am of the opinion that house-cum-cattle-shed construction only on 0-2- biswa which is most subservient to agriculture has not effected adversely the cultivation of tenancy land measuring 5-15-5 bighas in any way. It definitely would improve the management and increase the output of the land. I fully agree with the recommendation of the Learned Divisional Commissioner. The revision is accepted and the judgment passed by the courts below are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to pay the rent if due to the respondent to be calculated by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. Revision accepted.