JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J.—Uttam Chand respondent is the landlord of the demised premises which consists of four rooms situated in Main Bazar, Nadaun, Tehsil Hamirpur, fully detailed in the petition. These premises were let out on rent to the present petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 75. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenants under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be called as the Act), on the grounds namely :— (i) that the tenants have changed the user of the demised premises without the written consent of the landlord ; (ii) tenants have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises ; (iii) tenants are guilty of committing nuisance ; and (iv) they have sublet the premises to Parmodh Kumar, petitioner No. 3 and that tenants were in arrears of rent. 2. The tenants contested the petition. They admitted the relationship between the parties and also admitted that the premises were rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 95. They have denied that they were in arrears of rent or have in any way changed the user of the demised premises. They also denied that they had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, or that they were guilty of committing nuisance or sub-letting. The tenants raised the objection that landlord was estopped by his act and conduct to file the present petition for eviction. 3. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:— 1. Whether the respondents have subjected the demised premises to change of user by installing Atta and Oil Mill and they are liable to be ejected? OPP 2. Whether the respondents have impaired the material value and utility of the demised premises by installing Atta and Oil Mill therein and by opening the holes, damaging the building as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the respondents are guilty of committing nuisance by running Atta and Oil Mill, if so, its effect ? OPP 4. Whether the respondents are guilty of sub-letting the premises as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are in arrears of rent and liable to be ejected? OPP 6. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing this petition as alleged? OPR 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR 8. Relief. Issue Nos. OPP 4. Whether the respondents are guilty of sub-letting the premises as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are in arrears of rent and liable to be ejected? OPP 6. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing this petition as alleged? OPR 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR 8. Relief. Issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were decided against the landlord-petitioner, but the other issue Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7 were decided in favour of the landlord, and as a consequence thereof, the petition for eviction was allowed and the tenants were directed to deliver the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within one month, and to this effect, Rent Controller passed the order on 24th December, 1992. 4. The tenants as well as the landlord assailed the order of the Rent Controller by preferring separate miscellaneous appeals. The appeal preferred by the tenants were registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No, 4 of 1993, while that preferred by the landlord was registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1993. The adverse findings given against the landlord/tenants were assailed in the aforesaid two distinct appeals on various grounds. 5. The Appellate Authority disposed of both the two appeals through a common judgment dated 8th March, 1994, whereby the appeal preferred by the tenants was dismissed, while the appeal preferred by the landlord was allowed, and the tenants were held to be liable for ejectment on both the grounds of change of the user of the demised premises without the con sent of the landlord and materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises under section 14(2) (ii) (b) and section 14 (2) (iii), respectively, of the Act. 6. The aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority has been assailed by the tenants through the present Revision Petition on various grounds. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also minutely scrutinised the entire record. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sh. 6. The aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority has been assailed by the tenants through the present Revision Petition on various grounds. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also minutely scrutinised the entire record. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sh. K, D. Sood, has raised a preliminary objection, whereby it has been contended that there was no provision under the Act to file cross-objections against the findings given by the Rent Controller, which goes adverse to the interest of the landlord, therefore, the Appellate Authority acted illegally in entertaining and allowing the cross-objections of the landlord which has been made the sole basis of the order under reference passed by the appellate authority, The learned Counsels line of argument has been that in case it is held that landlord was not legally entitled to file cross-objections, and those were held not to be legally maintainable, the findings of the Appellate Authority automatically falls through. It is not so simple a matter, as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to take advantage from 1983 SLJ (HP) Vol. XIII, p. 160, M/s. Ram Asra Hari Chand v. Shri Tara Chand and another, wherein, it has been held that right to file an appeal provided in the Act can be availed of by any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, and person aggrieved means a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has lawfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrong fully affected his title to do something. In this reported case, it has been held that the landlord was a person aggrieved and could file an appeal against the order of ejectment passed in his favour by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of rent, which could be nullified by depositing the arrears of rent within the statutory period of 30 days and not on any other ground. It was held that landlord was definitely a person aggrieved as he was not granted relief on any other ground and could file an appeal against the order of Rent Controller. 10. It was held that landlord was definitely a person aggrieved as he was not granted relief on any other ground and could file an appeal against the order of Rent Controller. 10. On the strength of the aforesaid ruling, it is being argued that the landlord did not assail the findings given against him by the Rent Controller by way of an appeal, but only by way of cross-objections, therefore, as the cross-objections were not legally maintainable, the appellate authority acted illegally in allowing the cross-objections, and in case, those cross-objections are excluded, there does not remain anything in favour of the landlord. 11. I think, the aforesaid inferences are not at all available to the petitioner in the manner they have been put up before this Court. At first instance, it may be referred that the so-called cross-objections filed by the landlord were registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1993, simply because, those have been at one place of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, described as cross-objections, they will not acquire that status at all Actually the so called cross-objections have been registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1993 and have been treated as a separate distinct appeal and, therefore, with this background, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner will not carry any legal weight whatsoever. 12. However, otherwise, it may not be out of place to mention here, Issue No. 2 has been decided in favour of the landlord, on the basis of which, the eviction order was also passed. The landlord assailed only those findings, which were given against him by the Rent Controller in the appeal filed by him and of course that appeal was against the findings on Issue No. 1 given by the Rent Controller. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that there was nothing in favour of the landlord to fall upon the findings given by the Rent Controller in his favour. Otherwise, as referred earlier, to describe the appeal preferred by the landlord against the findings given adversely to him, as the cross-objections at one place of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would be a misnomer. Actually, the so called cross-objections were nothing, but an appeal, preferred by the landlord which was treated and decided as an appeal by the Appellate Authority. Actually, the so called cross-objections were nothing, but an appeal, preferred by the landlord which was treated and decided as an appeal by the Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter, the objection being raised on behalf of the petitioner, as discussed above, is devoid of any legal merit. 13. On merit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of the evidence examined before the learned Rent Controller, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were wrongly disposed of, and as a consequence thereof, the order under reference is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsels argument in this particular behalf has been that even if on factual aspect the evidence examined is favourably considered, legally that evidence will not be available to the landlord for seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises oh the grounds which have been the scope of Issue Nos. 1 and 2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submission, parties case alongwith evidence examined thereto has to be appreciated in the light of the law as provided under the Act. 14. The landlords pleadings, which have given rise to the Issue Nos. I, 2 and 3, were as under :— (i) that the demised premises have been subjected to the conversion of user by installing therein an Oil and Flour Mill (Tail and Atta Chaki Industry) with effect from January 1989 ; (ii) that in the process of installation of the Oil and Atta Mill, the floors and walls of the Northern side shop of the demised premises have been materially altered and damaged. The floors of the Northern side shop of the demised premises have been dug out and dismentled and the central wall between the two rooms of the same shop of the demised premises has been damaged by breaking open a hole 3 x 3 (Approx ) to facilitate the passage of Engine Pulley, strap for running the Tail and Atta Mill/ Industry by means of three phase high voltage electricity which is sending vibrations in the demised premises/building and therefore the value and utility of the demised premises has been impaired ; (iii) that the running of the Oil and Atta Mill creates lot of sound and is a continuous source of disturbance in the vicinity of the demised premises and as such the same is also a nuisance to the owners of the buildings there." The tenants denied the aforesaid pleadings of the landlord and stated to be incorrect. It was a general denial. No allegations specifically had been pleaded as per the grounds referred to above. Parties examined oral as well as documentary evidence in this regard. 15. During the course of argument, it was not disputed that the premises in dispute were rented out for running a Karyana shop. The rent note executed in this behalf on record is Ext PW 2/B and the relevant conditions of the rent-note runs as under :— "In the shops the work of Karyana would be done, which meant that it would be general merchandise." So admittedly, the demised premises were rented out for running a shop or a shop of general merchandise As per pleadings of the tenants, the averments made have been simply denied. 16 During the course of the proceedings, Local Commissioner was appointed vide order 10-12-1992 by the Rent Controller The report submitted by the Local Commissioner is being reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience :— "The Honble Court appointed me as Local Commissioner in the above titled rent petition vide order dated 10-12-1992 to visit the disputed shop on 12-12-1992 at 3 30 p. in and to find out how many rooms the disputed shop is having at the spot and also find out regarding the existence of flour mill and spellor and thirdly report as to whether the belt of the Machine is fixed in the separate room. So accordingly I fixed my visit to Nadaun. So accordingly I fixed my visit to Nadaun. But on 11-12-1992 at 2.00 p. m. power of attorney of Uttam Chand, Ramesh Chand informed that he is apprehending about breaking of walls and conversion of different rooms into big hall by respondents during night and asked me to visit the spot on that day. I refused to it. He moved an application before the Honble Court for early visit of Local Commissioner, but Rent Controller were out of station He assured me that the respondent will be present at the spot because they are running business in the disputed shop. So on numerous requests I visited the spot on 11-12-1992 at 4J5 p. m. Accordingly 1 gave notices to both the parties and they accepted it The disputed shop was identified by the petitioner as well as respondents who are running business there. The Northern side of this disputed shop was identified that of Gian Chand, the Southern side there is shop of Kan war Soban Singh, in the Eastern side there is land of Kehar Singh, but towards Western side there is public path. The above said disputed shop is having 4 rooms in total The internal dimensions are given on the site plan attached herewith. The Spellor is in room EFGD marked as S, while the Flour Mill marked FT, Motor Marked M Pullies marked P are in room FHCG, Gl is the gate or gap in wall FG and its width is 56 inches and height is about 6 feet and it has no provision for doors. Bl is Belt between Spellor S and Pulley, B2 is Belt between Flour Mill and Pulley, B3 is Belt between Motor and Pulley. The width of wall Gl is 36. On the other hand AEFI and IBHF are other two rooms and there the respondents are running the business of grocery. In the Fl there is door Dl and its width is 45". D3 and D4 are doors of shops. It is also submitted that only some portions of the walls are plastered and others are without plaster. I obeyed the floor is not, smooth and there are small cracks. The building is looking old one. The site plan and statement of the parties are attached with this report. I have received the Local Commissioner fee. Therefore, the report is hereby submitted for kind consideration of the Honble Court." 17. I obeyed the floor is not, smooth and there are small cracks. The building is looking old one. The site plan and statement of the parties are attached with this report. I have received the Local Commissioner fee. Therefore, the report is hereby submitted for kind consideration of the Honble Court." 17. The Local Commissioners report is accompanied by the plan describing the demised premises as was observed by the Local Commissioner at the spot. 18. The report of the Local Commissioner was accepted by the learned Rent Controller after dis-allowing the objections filed assailing that report. In the present proceedings also nothing has been said assailing the alleged report, 19. Vinod Kumar, one of the tenants, when examined on oath stated that in the demised premises Chaki and Kohlu have been installed in January 1989. He also added that he and Parmod Kumar entered into a partnership pertaining to Kohlu and Chaki on 27-114989, According to him, Karyana was also being sold in the demised premises He admitted that the landlord had not given any written consent for installing Kohlu and Chaki, but orally he had allowed to do so in December 1989. 20. It has been forcefully contended on behalf of the petitioner that actually, as per evidence on record, a part of demised premises was being used as a Karyana shop, for which the premises had been rented out, there fore, it will not amount to change of user of the demised premises on any account whatsoever, even if the two Small Scale Industries have been set up in a part of the demised premises. Learned Counsel further submitted that the purpose for which the demised premises were rented out still remains there and has not been changed at all. 21. At this stage, the relevant provisions of section 14 (2) (ii) (b) of the Act can be referred, wherein it has been provided that: "(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant is satisfied— (i)……… (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord— (a) ……. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant is satisfied— (i)……… (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord— (a) ……. (b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased " AIR 1993 HP 49, Shiv Ram and another v Sheela Devi, can safely be taken note of in order to appreciate the controversy arising in the present proceedings. Para 13 of this reported case is very much relevant, which is being reproduced hereunder:— "13. In the facts of the instant case, it was found that the purpose of letting was storage of bananas and it is the common case of the parties that the user has been changed to that of manufacturing of steel trunks and sale thereof. Neither the business of manufacture of steel trunks and sale thereof is allied to the business for which the premises were let out, nor this change is of a small nature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that manufacturing of steel trunks involves lot of beating and denting of the steel while converting the same into trunks which ultimately is not only likely to impair the utility and result in damage to the premises but also is a cause of nuisance. As such, the change of user would definitely attract the mischief of section 14 (2) (ii) (b) of the Act. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners have thus no force." In the reported case, the premises were rented out for storing bananas and the user had been changed to that of manufacturing of steel trunks and sale thereof. In the aforesaid background, it was held that neither the business of manufacturing of steel trunks and sale thereof is allied to the business for which the premises were let out and, therefore, it was held that change of user would definitely attract the mischief of section 14 (2) (ii) (b) of the Act. 22. In the present case, admittedly, the premises were rented out for running a Karyana business and for general merchandise. The installation of two units of Industry, which were a flour-mill and oil-speller cannot be on any ground whatsoever said to be an allied business pertaining to Karyana business. 22. In the present case, admittedly, the premises were rented out for running a Karyana business and for general merchandise. The installation of two units of Industry, which were a flour-mill and oil-speller cannot be on any ground whatsoever said to be an allied business pertaining to Karyana business. However, it could be true that had the premises in dispute been rented out for installation of these two units, referred to above, Karyana shop in a part of those premises definitely could be said to be an allied business to the aforesaid Industry, but the vice versa is not at all correct. There is no doubt that in the reported case, the facts only mentioned that the user of the premises have been changed without specifying whether the user of the entire premises have been changed or a part of that. However, in so far as the present case is concerned, it will have no effect at all, especially when, admittedly, the tenants have changed the user of a part of the demised premises without the consent of the landlord which subsequent user of the premises is not ancillary to the specific original purpose. The Act has been provided, no doubt, to safeguard the interest of the tenants, but the tenants who are not complying and conducting themselves within the ambit of the provisions of the Act, definitely expose themselves for the eviction proceedings. Landlord after all has been provided right to evict the tenant on certain grounds, one of which has been the change of user of the demised premises by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord. In the present case, as discussed above, on the first ground, this Court does not find any scope for interfering with the order under reference. 23. The other grounds pleaded by the landlord is covered under section 14 (2) (iii) and (iv) of the Act, on the basis of which the landlord can seek the eviction of the tenant on the plea that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land, or, that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of buildings in the neigh bourhood. The Local Commissioner has reported that some portions of the walls were plastered and others were without plaster, and he observed that the floor was not smooth and there were small cracks. According to the Commissioner, building was looking an old one. There is other oral evidence examined by the parties in this particular behalf. It is not disputed that for installation of the flour mill and oil speller and for installation of electrical meters of these mills, the tenants had to dug the floor and thereafter fixed those machines. The digging of the floor and fixing of the machines definitely caused some damage to the building, which can safely be said to have impaired the value of the building. Moreover, the continuous running of these two machines would definitely be causing some vibration in addition to creating noise. The demised premises have been described by the Local Commissioner to be an old one. The installation of these two machines and its running was definitely likely to impair the utility of the old demised premises. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that running of these machines does not create any sound, but the natural consequence of running such like machines would be the creation of sound and vibration which could not be at all pleasing to the neighbourhood, but on the other hand would be a source of continuous nuisance The Appellate Authoritys inferences in this behalf, again have been correctly arrived at by proper appreciation of the evidence and the circumstances present in this case. 24. In the present case, in so far as the factual position was concerned, that had not been in a way disputed, but the applicability of the law in the aforesaid background had been the main base of the submissions put forth before this Court, No other point has been stressed. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority, and accordingly dismiss the present Revision Petition, being devoid of merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision dismissed.