JUDGEMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.(Oral): The petitioner is a tenant of the premises owned by the respondent. Respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under section 14 of the Himachai Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 on two grounds, namely, default in payment of rest and causing additions. And material alterations to the building thereby impairing the value of the building materially, besides causing damages. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent bat negatived the other ground urged by the respondent the aggrieved respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The latter has allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner was guilty of making such additions and alterations to the building whereby (he value of the building was materially impaired and caused damage to the building. Consequently, the Appellate Authority directed eviction of the petitioner herein. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even the pleadings of the respondent before the Rent Controller suffers from vital deficiencies inasmuch as it kid omitted to specifically refer to the acts committed by the tenant, which according to the respondent materially impaired the value of the building. Second!y, it is urged that material portion of the evidence has been over-looked by the said Authority and the findings recorded by the said Authority are, therefore, vitiated. Thirdly, it is argued that even if the petitioner had caused certain additions and alterations to the building, they are of such a nature that they could be easily removed later and the building can be restored to its original position without much of expenses. Consequently, according to learned counsel, the requirement of section 14(2) (iii) is not satisfied. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited a number of judgments including those of the Supreme Court 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that it is not necessary to set out-the evidence in the pleadings and what has been pleaded by the respondent before the Rent Controller is more than sufficient to put the petitioner on notice of the ground of eviction. It is also argued that both party was taken by surprise and both the parties had adduced such evidence as available to them in order to establish their respective cases. It is also argued that both party was taken by surprise and both the parties had adduced such evidence as available to them in order to establish their respective cases. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the Appellant Authority has appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and the findings of fact arrived at by the said Authority are not liable to be interfered with in a revision petition. It is contended that the question whether the value of the building has been materially impaired by the acts committed by the tenant should be considered from the point of view of the landlord and not that of the tenant. It is lastly argued that the findings of the Appellate Authority warrant the conclusion that the building has been damaged by the tenant and the value thereof has been materially impaired and, therefore, the petitioner is liable for eviction. 4. In paragraph 18(a) (2) of the petition for eviction filed by the respondent, it is stated as follows: "That the respondents have after the commencement of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act has materially damaged the premises in question by misusing the same and especially the approach portion has been broken and others additions and alterations have been made without the consent of . the petitioner thereby value and utility of the premises has been materially impaired. The respondents have also damaged the retaining wall" 5. In the reply filed by the petitioner it is averred in paragraph 5 that he never carried any additions and alterations as falsely contended by the respond dent herein. It is also stated that the value and utility of the premises has not been impaired by any act of the petitioner. Causing of the damage by the petitioner is also denied. 6. No doubt, it is not necessary in a pleading to set out the evidence, but the respondent could have been more specific in die pleading filed before the Rent Controller. It would have been better if the specific act committed by the tenant had been expressly stated in paragraph 18(a) (2). However, that will not enable the petitioner herein to contend that the findings of the Authority arc unsustainable. It would have been better if the specific act committed by the tenant had been expressly stated in paragraph 18(a) (2). However, that will not enable the petitioner herein to contend that the findings of the Authority arc unsustainable. It is seen from the order of the Rent Controller itself that neither party- was taken by surprise nor both parties were fully aware as to what was the case to be met by them. At no stage of die proceedings, the petitioner herein raised any objection as to the respondent adducing evidence with regard to the acts committed by him, which according to the respondent caused diminution in the value of the building. If the petitioner wanted to take the stand that there was no pleading and no evidence could have been adduced, he ought to have raised an objection before the Rent Controller and stop bad the respondent from adducing such evidence. But, on the other hand, he had allowed the respondent to adduce such evidence as thought fit by the respondent and he had also chosen to let in contrary evidence. In such cir-substances, this plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner for the first time in this revision petition cannot be entertained on the ground that die pleading of the respondent before the Rent Controller was not specific. I cannot hold that the findings of the Appellate Authority are unwarranted or vitiated. 7. Looking in to the records, I find that the contention of learned counsel that the material portion of the evidence has been over- looked by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable. The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the entire evidence on record and he has not omitted any part of it from out of his consideration. It is seen that PW-1 is the Power Agent of the respondent. PW-2 is a neighbor and PW-3 is an expert examined .by the respondent herein. On the other hand, the petitioner has examined besides himself an expert as RW-2, who has also given a report, which is marked as RW-2/A. It should also be mentioned that during the tendency of the appeal an Advocate was appointed as Commissioner to inspect the promises and m arc a report as to the factual position whether there exists a Parchati. as contended by the respondent and whether there exists wooden shelves and admirals. as contended by the respondent and whether there exists wooden shelves and admirals. The necessity for appointment of such Commissioner arose because there was a factual dispute raised by the petitioner herein. According to him, there was no such Parchatti or wooden shelves, as alleged by the respondent herein. The report of the Advocate Commissioner filed in the appellate Court shows that there was a wooden Parchatti, which existed in the bath-room uid it was provided 1 feet below the roof of the bath-room. The Commissioner has also observed in the report that the Parchatti is used for storing discarded household articles. He has also found in the living room that along with one wall the tenant has provided wooden shelves on which household articles such as trunks,Beddings, attaches case and other sundry articles were kept. It is also lo be noted that RW-2 who, is an expert examined by the petitioner herein had denied the existence of a Parchatti. In his report, he has stated that there is no such Parchatti and no addition or alteration has been made by the tenant. That infect warranted the appointment of an advocate Commissioner during the tendency of the appeal. 8. The question is whether the Appellate Authority has omitted lo take note of any part of the material evidence. I am unable to find any such omission. Learned counsel has taken me through some part of the deposition given by PW-1 and PW-2, and I am unable to find any relevant part having been omitted What exactly is contended by learned counsel is that the retaining wail had admittedly become damaged earlier and such damage was not caused by any act of the tenant, but the evidence of PW-1 itself is to the effect that the retaining wall which was damaged years back ha&.Vcen rebuilt then itself. It is not open to the petitioner to rely upon one portion of the evidence of PW-1 and ignore the other portion of such-evidence. Hence the other Appellate Authority was justified in not referring to that aspect of the matter. 9. However, the Appellate Authority has considered all the evidence on record with regard to the existence of Parchatti and wooden shelves etc. on the wall of the kitchen. Hence the other Appellate Authority was justified in not referring to that aspect of the matter. 9. However, the Appellate Authority has considered all the evidence on record with regard to the existence of Parchatti and wooden shelves etc. on the wall of the kitchen. He has also pointed out that there is evidence on record to show that putting of the Parchatti has caused the damage to the building and it has thus materially impaired its value. The relevant portions of the Appellate Authoritys order are as follows: MPW- i Khushi Ram has stated that by breaking the walls of the premises the respondent had constructed Parchhati and Verandah had been damaged by breaking the wood (by converting bigger wood logs into smaller pieces of wood) and the retaining wall has also been thereby rendered weak and the building itself has been endangered and thus the value and Utility of the premises has been impaired.:PW-2 has stated that the respondents break coal and wood outside the door whereby Verandah has developed cracks and that Parchhati has been constructed in the bath room by digging the walls and similarly shelves have been put in the room by digging the walls whereby the walls have developed cracks. He has denied the suggestions that no additions or alterations have been made in the premises and that it is in the same condition in which it was earlier. He has further denied that Verandah has not been damaged by the respondent. He has admitted that son of Khushi Ram (PW-i) is his friend and that he is not aware of the dimensions of the room tn dispute. Therefore, his sole statement may not be of much value but it will have to be appreciated in the light of the other evidence. PW-3 Surjit Sing has proved the inspection report Ext.PW-3/A and the plan Ext.PW-3/B is having been prepared by him after visiting the spot. As per the contest of report Ext PW- 3/A the wooden shelves, wooden Almira and wooden-planks flooring laid above the bath room arc shown in red colour in he plan and the yellow colour therein represents the cracks developed due to leakage of water through the bath room and kitchen flooring and that constant seepage of water through these cracks is a inviting damage and collaps to the retaining wall which is further damage to the main building. Cracks have also developed in the bed Room and kitchen floor and are deteriorating the building and the Retaining wall in gross He claims that these changes have paired. The value of the building and further states that his mention about the leakage of water is about the water which comes from bath room and kitchen. In his cross-examination he has stated that the additions and alterations about which he has made statement can be easily set night He further states that the additions and alterations were pointed out to him by Khushi Ram and he noted the same. He could not state whether the planks used for the additions and alterations were old one. He denied (hat he did not see the premises in question and made a false report. He has admitted construction of Parchhati in the bath room. He has denied thai it was laid after putting holes in the walls. He has further stated that this Parchhati is 3 or 4 feet below the roof. He has denied putting of racks and shelves is in the room. However, he has admitted that a partition has been put in the kitchen but immediately controverter himself by saying that this partition is there right from the beginning. He has further denied that the walls have developed cracks due to construction of Parchhati or that the Verandah has de-eloped cracks due to breaking of coal This witness apparently has something to conceal on this court. He does not even support the suggestions of the respondent put to PW-I Khushi Ram that Parchhati was constructed by Khushi Ram. He denies putting of racks, shelves / almirahs in the rooms which is belied in view of the consents of the report Ext.PW-3/A and the plan Ext.PW-3/B. He has. Denned the existence of the cracks in the room and the Verandah which statement is belied not only by the above discussed evidence but also by the contents of RW-2/A, a report prepared by his own witness S.P Kapur. In the said report it has been observed about the condition of the building that the building is in fair condition except for minor cracks in the sealing of main room. Cracks in the parapet of the common passive and a crack in the floor of common passage. In the said report it has been observed about the condition of the building that the building is in fair condition except for minor cracks in the sealing of main room. Cracks in the parapet of the common passive and a crack in the floor of common passage. This description is more or less in conformity with the details as are available in the report Ext.PW-3/A and the plan Ext.PW-3/B. It further goes on to stated that a portion of the retaining wall on front side is bulged out whereas the adjoining portion has already been repaired. He has further stated mat the cracks in the parapet and the common passage arc due to settlement of land in front of the building. No doubt this witness assigns the reason of settlement of land for developing cracks in the parapet and the common passage but he is silent about the reason for the cracks, admitted inside the main room. The building had been constructed in the year 1968, according to RW S.P. Kapur. It cannot be readily believed that the building will develop cracks due to settlement of land after about 20 years. Therefore, the probable reason for these cracks appears to be the Seepage of Water and due to breaking of the coal and the wood in the Verandah as stated by the PWS and as reported by PW-3 Surjii Singh. - Thus the statement of Ashok Rajan that there are no cracks is belied by the report of his own expert witness. Since the report of the Commission has net been disputed and no objections have been preferred against it by the parties despite opportunity, therefore, it has to be taken as correct. Evidently, Parchhati and shelves/curtains have been provided in the Premises in question by the tenant/respondent. Putting up of shelves cannot be reasonably said to have caused impairment of th; value and utility of a building. However, providing of a Parchhati expected to sustain sufficient load is a absolutely different thing. As I have already stated hereinabove that a Parchhati cannot be laid unless it has something to support it and it has not been explained for the respondent as to how this Parchhati is resting without damaging and over burdening the walls. It has been brought on record by the appellant/landlady that the Parchhati rests on wooden members fixed by. Creating holes in the walls. It has been brought on record by the appellant/landlady that the Parchhati rests on wooden members fixed by. Creating holes in the walls. Creating of holes in the walls of a building invariably weakens the walls and thereby materially impairs the value of the structure. That such impairment as taken place . is evident not only from the statements of the P. Ws but also in view of the fact that the tenant/respondent had tried to conceal the factum of putting of the Parchhati and the shelves instead of explaining that thereby no damage has been caused to the building or these has been no impairment of its utility and value. Effort to conceal this aspect of matter in. it self is a factor which must heavily weight against the respondent/tenant. Still worse is the utter falsehood stated by S.P. Kapur the expert who has denied thee very existence of the Parchhati and shelves in the premises. Had this expert been satisfied that such a Parchhati/shelves had not impaired the value and utility of the premises he would hay fairly reported about their existence and given his honest opinion. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that the tenant/respondent had been breaking the coal and wood in the Verandah just outside the door whereby it had developed cracks as mentioned in Ext.PW-3/B wherein the creeks as mentioned in ExtPW-3/B wherein the cracks start just in front of the door of the kitchen. A passage or a Verandah cannot be used by a tenant for such purpose and if he does it he cannot escape his liability of being held having indulged in the acts whereby the value and utility of a building is impaired. It is also established that a Parchhati has been put in the bath room by creating holes in the walls by the tenant/respondent. It is nobodys case that it was done by the tenant with the consent or approval of the land- lady/appellant I have already stated hereinabove that this alteration and addition in the bath room by. Putting of the Parchhati is also such an act whereby the value and utility of the building has been materially impaired." 10. It is clear from the above passages in the Appellate Authoritys order that he has applied his mind property to the evidence on record and discussed the same in the proper perspective. Putting of the Parchhati is also such an act whereby the value and utility of the building has been materially impaired." 10. It is clear from the above passages in the Appellate Authoritys order that he has applied his mind property to the evidence on record and discussed the same in the proper perspective. There is no substance in the contention that some material portion of the evidence has been over-looked which warrants the findings of tie Appellate Authority to be interfered with by this Court. 11. The next contention that the alterations effected by, the tenant to the building are such t at they can be easily removed later and they are only temporary in nature u-id the building can be restored to its original condition with small amount of expenditure cannot be accepted. The question which has to be considered under section 14(2)(iii) is whether the tenant has committed an act which is likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or. It is not merely the value but also the utility of the building that has to be taken into account. This certainly. Cannot be from the point of view of the tenant. A tenant cannot contend that during the period of his occupation, he will alter the building in such a manner that it will be useful for him and it will be of high utility for him and that cannot be a ground for eviction under this section. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent the question has to be approached from die point of view of the landlord, who is the owner of the building. When a building is given to the tenant for occupation, it is not open to the tenant to alter it in any manner without the permission of the landlord. The Act makes it a ground for eviction, when the tenant has committed such an act which will impair the value or utility of the building materially. When a building is given to the tenant for occupation, it is not open to the tenant to alter it in any manner without the permission of the landlord. The Act makes it a ground for eviction, when the tenant has committed such an act which will impair the value or utility of the building materially. When that is the ground for eviction, it is for the Court to find out whether the value or utility of the building has been materially impaired from the point of view of the landlord, who is the owner of the building In this connection, my attention is drawn to e decision of the Supreme Court in Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand & Ors., 1993(1) R.C.R. 675. Learned Judges have held that in determining the question the Court must address itself to fee nature, character of the construction and the extent to which they make changes in the front and structure of the accommodation, having regard to the purpose for which the accommodation may have been let out to the tenant and that the impairment of the value or utility of the building is from the point of the landlord and not of the tenant. Hence there is no substance in the contention that at the time when the tenant vacates the building the alteration or new additions could be removed and the building could be restored to its originl position. 12. However, this contention is not available to the petitioner in view of the factual finding of the Appellate Authority. I have referred to the relevant passages in the judgment of the Appellate Authority, ft has been found by the Appellate Authority that the Parchatti has been put by making holes in the wall of the bath room by the tenant. It is also found that the tenant has been breaking coal and wood in the Verandah just outside the door whereby it had developed cracks as mentioned in Ex.PW-3/B wherein the cracks start just in front of the door of the kitchen. It must also be mentioned that even according to the report c f RW-2 there are minor cracks in the ceiling. It must also be mentioned that even according to the report c f RW-2 there are minor cracks in the ceiling. When such is the condition of the building, it is certainly not open to the tenant to put up a Parchhai: by creating making holes in the wail and inserting the same in the wail Hence on the facts, I am of the view that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable. 13. In connection, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the observations made by the Rent Controller in his order. The "Rent Controller has said that the landlord must prove that the tenant has carried out such additions and alterations which could not be set right without huge expenses and thus the value and the utility of the premises has been materially impaired. I am unable to accept the proposition laid down by the Rent Controller. There is no warrant in the provision of the section for laying down such a proposition. In fact the discussion of the matter by the Rent Controller starts with a wrong statement that "indisputably, the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute". It must be pointed out that the Rent Controller was deciding the case after evidence had been adduced by both sides and arguments have been heard. He should have decided the case on that basis and there is no question of position being indisputably at that stage because there is no admission on the part of the landlord that the value of the building was not materially impaired. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gobind Ram v. Shrimati Kushalya Rani & Ors.. 1982(1) R.L.R.288. A Single Judge of that Court found that a Parchhati was put up by die tenant but there was no evidence whatever on record to show that the same caused any damage to the building. The learned Judge has pointed out that there «u no cracks in the wall and no damage was caused to the demised premises. The witness who appeared as the Mukhtar-e-am of the landlady, (that is, AW-7) could not even say whether the Parchhatti was supported by any Pallas etc. or not. The learned Judge has pointed out that there «u no cracks in the wall and no damage was caused to the demised premises. The witness who appeared as the Mukhtar-e-am of the landlady, (that is, AW-7) could not even say whether the Parchhatti was supported by any Pallas etc. or not. In that state of evidence, the learned Judge held that there was nothing on record to show that the building was in any way damaged thereby the value thereof was impaled. He proceeded further to observe that even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that the holes were dug to open the ventilator and in order to place some wooden Ballas in the -walls, there was no evidence on record to prove that it had impairer materially the value or utility of the building in any way. Thus the milling of the learned Judge in that case was entirely on the basis of the evidence before him and there is no abstract proposition of law, which has been laid down by the learned Judge. Hence, the ruling will not help the petitioner in the present case. 15. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Parkash v. Amar Singh & anr, AIR 1987 S.C. 617. Referring to section 14(c) of the U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. 10 of 1952), the Bench held that the material alteration means substantial change in character, form and structure of building without destroying its identity. The section in the U.P. Act referred to materially alteration of the accommodation. The relevant part of the section was in the following terms: "That the tenant has without the permission of the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such construction as in me opinion of the Court has materially altered the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value." It was that part of the section which was being considered by the Bench in that case. The material alteration thus related to the accommodation and the Court held that in the context it meant a change in the, character, form and the structure of the building without destroying its identify. Thus the decision turned upon the language of the relevant section in the U.P. Act. In our case, section 14(2) (iii) does not refer to material alteration in the accommodation. Thus the decision turned upon the language of the relevant section in the U.P. Act. In our case, section 14(2) (iii) does not refer to material alteration in the accommodation. The section, as stated earlier, refers only to the value or utility of the building, which is impaired materially. Thus there is a vast difference between the section which was considered by the Supreme Court in that case and present case before me. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in that case cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner in the present case. 16. Learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of the supreme Court in Brijendra Nath Bhargava & anr. v. Harsh Wardhan & Ors., 1988 (a) RC.J. 467. The Court held on the available records that the only possible conclusion could be that either the balcony was constructed with the implied consent of the landlord or that after seeing it and understanding and on assurance given by the tenant, the landlord decided to waive his objection and, therefore, did not make it a ground for termination of the lease in his notice before the suit Thus the case turned on the waiver of the landlord inferred from the relevant facts. That ruling cannot help the petitioner in the present case. 17. Reliance is placed on a judgment Bhatia Cloth Mills v. Vasudev, 1989 (1) R.C.J. 441. A single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the construction of two perchhatis in a room after digging two holes in a wall and having installed one 8 HP. diesel oil engine to a main hall had not resulted in materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises: The learned Judge after referring to the relevant evidence found that the perchhatis were made up of wooden planks and they rested wholly upon a wooden rafter inserted in the walls of the office after digging two holes, which according to the evidence could be filled after inserting 4/7 bricks. It was also found that the hole in he main hall meant for serving as out-let for the fans of the machines being operated through an electric motor would not amount to such impairment. It was also found that the hole in he main hall meant for serving as out-let for the fans of the machines being operated through an electric motor would not amount to such impairment. Learned Judge observed that the mere factum that a hole has been dug in the wall for serving as exhaust pipe of the oil engine will not amount to material impairment in the value and utility of the building especially when the building was let out for running a factory, which was located in the Industrial area of Ludhiana. The learned Judge went on saying that the judicial notice can be taken of the fact that due to short supply of electricity to the industrial units in that part of the country there was no option for the industrialists but to install oil engine for running their factories. It was in such circumstances, the learned Judge held that the putting of two perchhatis- and installation of oil engine did not impair the value of the building, which has been let out for the purpose of a factory in the industrial area. The ruling cannot have any application is the present case. 18. The last of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is that of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Subhash Chander v. Valayati Ram. 1994(1) R.C.J. 580. The learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the acts of omission and commission of the tenant in that case could not be taken to be of such a nature as to term them as material impairment especially in the absence of there being a specific stand on behalf of the landlord in the ejectment petition as to how such alterations materially diminish the value and or utility* of the demised premises. The learned Judge also held that material impairment strictly stood for substantial change in character, i.e., diminishing of quality, value, strength and becoming worse or reduction in quality etc. It was observed that the landlord was bound to prove as a fact that the alterations made by the tenant materially impaired the value and utility of the building by leading cogent evidence. It was found on the facts that the walls were plastered and the floor was related by the tenant and that could not be said to hare affected the value of the building materially. It was found on the facts that the walls were plastered and the floor was related by the tenant and that could not be said to hare affected the value of the building materially. As seen from the report the decision turned on the facts of the case and cannot be cited as a precedent. If on the other hand the learned Judge had intended to lay down the abstract proposition of law that the landlord should make out in the petition itself as to how the alterations materially diminish the value or utility of the building. I am unable to accept the same to be good law, particularly in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vipin Kumars case (1993 (1) R.C.R. 675) to which I have already made a reference. 19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the following rulings. 20. In Ashok Kumar & anr. v. Faquir Chand & ors., 1987(2)R.C.R.651, a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the erection of walls, the installation of shutter and construction of slabs the erection of doors and the Main is both with the help of wood and cement, opening of holes in the wall for putting rafters for a support to the Main is all amounting to material alterations, which would render the tenant liable to ejectment. 21. In Massa Singh v. Chaudhary Baru Mall Charitable Trust, Dharm- shala Dhuri & ors., 1988(1) R.C.R. 695, the Supreme Court held that the construction of a Parchhati by a tenant which put weight on walls diminished the value and utility of the building warranting eviction under section 23(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 22. In Baldev Rai v. Harpreet Singh, minor through next friend, 1989(1) P.L.R. 733, the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the construction of a verandah by raising pillars and construction a roof on it with the support of wooden beams in the walls of the garage by making holes in it, thereafter, completing the process by patching up the side spaces with cement would amount to impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. 23. 23. My attention is drawn to a judgment in K.A. Anthappai v. C. Ahammed,(l992) 3 S.C.C. 277, was held that the power of the revision of the High Court under the provisions Kerala Rent Control Act was limited through it could be wider than that of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact of the subordinate authority if based on evidence are not open to interference by the High Court in a revision merely because the High Court does hot agree with the same. To a similar effect is the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bir Devinder Singh v. Mangat Ram, 1995(1) R.C.R. 440. 24. On a consideration of the entire material on record, I have no hesitation to hold that the findings amended by the Appellate Authority on the I factual questions arc unassailable as they are based on the evidence on record, There is no merit whatever in the revision petition and it is hereby dismissed. Will be no order as to costs.