JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This revision petition under section 21 (5) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 has been preferred against the order of Appellate Authority (II), Simla in CMA. No. 61-S/14 of 1983/49-S/14 of 1985, whereby the appeal of the tenant has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on i 612-1985/18-12-1985, thus confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in Case No. 72/2 of 1979, decided on 28-114983. - 2. The facts, in brief, are that the landlords (hereafter respondents) moved a petition for t£e eviction of the tenant (hereinafter the petitioner) on the ground that the petitioner, Central Co-operative Consumers Store, Naya Bazar, Willow Bank Estate, The Mail, Simla, made unauthorised extensions over the roof of the premises earlier occupied by late Shri M. L. Saxena, Advocate, belonging to the respondents, and have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. It was also alleged that stalls, which did not exist before, have be6n unauthorisedly constructed for the sale of meat etc etc. thereby changing the user and dealing with the premises by placing articles carelessly. Relating to the unauthorised construction over the roof of late Shri M. L, Saxena, specific allegation is the construction of two rooms, construction of which has impaired the value and utility of the premises as more weight has been put on the walls below them they could otherwise bear. 3. The petitioner contested these claims of the respondents and stated that initially there was an open Verandah with wooden flooring at the place in question. It was temporarily covered by cement sheets of light weight. This temporary construction has neither materially impaired the value and utility of the premises nor has caused any damage to the property in question. , As a matter of fact, it has enhanced the value and utility of the premises. It has also saved the property from further deterioration and the lower portion of the property has also been saved from rains and snow. 4. Construction of stalls was essential for keeping the articles for sale and since the premises had been taken for commercial purposes, the construction of stalls was necessary for the purpose of business. The allegation of non-payment of rent has been denied. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:— 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent ? The allegation of non-payment of rent has been denied. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:— 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent ? If so, to what amount? OPP 2. Whether the respondent without the permission and consent of the petitioner have made unauthorised extension as alleged which have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute? OPP 3. Whether the respondent have unauthorisedly constructed the stalls where the respondent vend meat etc. ? If so, its effect? OPP 4. Whether wooden stair-case have been damaged by throwing/ placing wooden boxes and bags of sugar etc. ? If so, its effect? OPP 5. Whether full particulars have not been given as required under the rules as alleged ? OPR 6. Whether the petition is not competent nor maintainable as the notice has not been issued to the respondent under Co-operative Societies Act as alleged? OPR 7. Relief. 6. After the trial, the Rent Controller held issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. The matter came before the Appellate Court which declined to interfere with the Rent Controllers order. This is how, the petitioner has assailed the orders of the Rent Authorities by way of this revision petition. 7. At the outset, Shri Kapil Dev Sood, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that this Court may not interfere with the concurrent decisions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which is not wide enough to enable this Court to examine the same as an appeal. It was contended that reprisal of evidence was not permissible nor findings of facts could be set-aside by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction However, keeping these limitations in mind and the fact that the jurisdiction of this Court is wider in revisions under the Rent Act as compared to section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I proceed to examine the matter by reference to the evidence on record, since, in my considered opinion, both the Rent Authorities have not only mis-read the evidence, but also drawn faulty conclusions before ordering the eviction of the petitioner. 8. Shri Manohar Singh states that the construction has been done unauthorisedly, since the same was done without his knowledge and consent. 8. Shri Manohar Singh states that the construction has been done unauthorisedly, since the same was done without his knowledge and consent. The construction, according to him, has impaired the value of the property also. Surjit Singh (PW 2), an Architect, has also been examined by the respondents He states that on visiting the spot, he prepared plan of additions and alterations and they have been shown in the plan (Ext. P-4) in red colours. According to him, the construction has impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute, because the Dhaji walls below the structure, cannot bear the additional load. Moreover, the building is also very old. 9. On the other hand, the petitioner produced G. D. Thapar (RW i), a Clerk in the Central Co-operative Consumers Store, to assail the allegations of the respondents This witness states that the construction in the Verandah had been made in the year 1975 and the same has not minimised the value and utility of the building. Similar is the version of Roshan Lai (RW 2). 10. Shri S. P Kapoor (RW 3) is the expert witness of the petitioner. He is an Architect and was Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department of H. P. Government. He inspected the site. He submitted his inspection report (Ext R-l) and also prepared plan (Ext. R-2). Since his report has been mis-read, it is relevant to quote the same in extenso; "Technical report on Naya Bazar in Willow Bank Building, —Willow Bank Building in which Central Co-operative Store "Naya Bazar is located was inspected by me" on 22 7-1980 on the request of General Manager, Simla Central Co-operative Consumers Store vide agreement dated 8-3-1967. The Accommodation consists of one hall, Managers room and other side rooms in the floor which accommodates Naya Bazar. The Management added 2 small rooms measuring 6 X l0—“ and 5—l-l/2X9-9 on the left side (towards Clark Hotel) on temporary basis. , Additional accommodation put up by the management is in continuation of the Managers room which was constructed by the owners and existed when the building was hired. New construction is in exact replica of Managers room in respect of supporting arrangement on the C. G. sheet roof exactly above the wooden columns in the lower storey. , Additional accommodation put up by the management is in continuation of the Managers room which was constructed by the owners and existed when the building was hired. New construction is in exact replica of Managers room in respect of supporting arrangement on the C. G. sheet roof exactly above the wooden columns in the lower storey. As the columns have the same vertical alignment, loads of upper floor are directly transferred to the columns in the lower storey, in both the cases /. e.f in Managers room and newly added rooms. The accommodation is safe on structural considerations and there is no sagging or tilting of floors, wails, columns or roof It is also added that the old structure (Managers room) which was constructed by the owners much before 1967 and subsequent additions made by Naya Bazar management are in perfect shape. Additional accommodation has lighter walls made up of wood and A, C. sheets and has shorter spans. There additions have not in any way damaged the building in respect of its shape or stability and are not likely to damage the building in future also Additional structures can be dismantled and building restored to its original condition without causing any damage. in view of the above consideration my observation are as under : (1) Additions are exactly similar to those done by the owners themselves while constructing the Managers Room. (2) There is no damage done are likely to be done in the future to the building by these additions. (3) The structure, put up subsequently is structurally safe. (4) The structure can be dismantled at any stage and building restored to its original condition (without causing any damage). Sd/- 3-1-1981" 11. A perusal of this report clearly indicates that it is a temporary construction of two small rooms measuring 6xlO—4" and 5—l-l/2X9 X9\ It is in continuation of the Managers room that was constructed by the owners and existed when the building was hired. The new construction is similar to that of the Managers room made of C G, sheet roof exactly above the wooden columns of the lower storey. The weight is directly transferred to the columns in the lower storey in both the cases, namely, the Managers room and the newly added rooms. It is safe and there is no likelihood of sagging or tilting of floor, walls, columns or the roof. The weight is directly transferred to the columns in the lower storey in both the cases, namely, the Managers room and the newly added rooms. It is safe and there is no likelihood of sagging or tilting of floor, walls, columns or the roof. The accommodation has lighter walls made of wood and A. C sheets and has shorter spans. These additions have net in any way damaged the building in respect of its shape or stability and are not likely to damage the building in question in future. Finally, it has been said in this report that the additional structure can be dismantled and the building restored to its original condition without causing any damage. 12. After examining the evidence of the parties, T am of the opinion that construction of enclosures in temporary in nature and of light weight. It has been done in the open Verandah that was lying vacant It was prone to damage by rain and snow thereby affecting the lower portion of the same which is named as roof of late Shri M. L Saxena, Advocate. Instead of impairing the premises, this construction has rather saved the lower portion of the building. The contention that more weight has been put on the Dhaji walls, is untenable, since, as already observed, the construction in question is of only a few cement sheets of light weight. Moreover, as stated by Shri S. P. Kapoor (RW-3), the weight is to fall on the columns in the lower storey, thus, leaving very less weight to be borne by the main wall. This has remained in existence for a number of years and the respondents have not produced any evidence pointing out that in between this period, any damage has occasioned to the building in question. Mere temporary construction does not give rise to the presumption that value and utility of the building has been impaired. It has to be clearly established by clear and cogent evidence, since it is not only a question of law but also a question of fact. 13. Mrs. Mere temporary construction does not give rise to the presumption that value and utility of the building has been impaired. It has to be clearly established by clear and cogent evidence, since it is not only a question of law but also a question of fact. 13. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that these enclosures are necessary to carry on the business by the Consumers Store and the consent of the respondents was not necessary, since they do not make any material alteration to the premises nor they have in any way impaired the value and utility of the premises. Reliance is placed on decisions like (1986) 1 RCR 114, Ves Dev and another v. Om Prakash, and (1984) 2 RCR 421, Roshan Lal v. Dharam Pal. Alternatively, she submits that they had been constructed long back and were within the knowledge of the respondents, so they have acquiesced in the construction thereof and the challenge at this late stage is inconsequential in view of (1978) II RLR 401, Mohinder Singh v. Om Parkash and others, and the explanation of the respondents in this regard is far from satisfactory, since they could have initiated the proceedings even when they had not actually partitioned the building in question. I see substance in all these submissions of the petitioners Counsel and hold that the decisions of the Rent Authorities have neither been in accordance with law nor in accordance with the evidence that has come on the record of this case. 14. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is merit in this revision and the same is accordingly allowed. The order of eviction passed against the petitioner is set-aside and the eviction application is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision allowed.