Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 2. While impugning the judgment and order passed by the appellate authority, Gurdaspur dated 6.10.1988, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following two contentions: (i) That the learned courts below have fallen in error of law in coming to the conclusion that no notice was served upon the tenant to pay house tax which was the integral part of rent, in relation to the tenanted premises; (ii) That the tenant had committed acts of nuisance by constructing a door opening on the outside and causing obstruction to the occupiers of the premises. 3. At the very outset I may notice that both these contentions are based on appreciation of evidence. There is a concurrent finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence recorded by the learned appellate authority and the Rent Controller, which at the face of it is neither palpably erroneous nor is contrary to the record. If that be so, this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction could not interfere with such finding. 4. Despite this, I may refer to necessary facts and the reasoning given by the learned courts below to place it beyond doubt that the present revision petition requires to be dismissed on merits even, The landlord had filed an eviction petition against the tenant on three grounds, namely, causing additions and alterations in the property by providing an opening in the house and consequently materially impairing the value and utility of the rented premises; the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent of the shop in question with effect from 1,4.1983 at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month and had also not paid the house tax payable at the rate of 17% (171/2%) per annum which was integral part of the rent; and that he opened a door by causing structural changes which also caused nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighborhood, The rent petition was contested by the tenant to claim that no notice was served upon him for payment of property tax and as such the demand raised before the Court was without any basis. Further it was pleaded that no addition or alteration was caused which may have impaired the value and utility of the property in question, 5. Further it was pleaded that no addition or alteration was caused which may have impaired the value and utility of the property in question, 5. The following five issues were framed by the trial court:- (i) Whether the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute as alleged? OPA (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the house tax? If so its effect? OPA (iii) Whether the respondent has committed such acts as a nuisance to the occupants of the building in the locality? OPA (iv) Whether the tender made by the respondent is illegal, invalid etc., as alleged? OPA (v) Relief. 6. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition while rejecting all the grounds pleaded by the landlord, It was noticed that no notice had been served upon the tenant requiring him to pay property tax and as such the demand raised by the petitioner as a ground for eviction was not tenable. A finding of fact was recorded that the additions were actually made by the erstwhile tenant and the premises were rented out to the tenant in the same condition. As far as the opening of the door was concerned, the Rent Controller noticed under issue No. 3 that the door was not affixed by the respondent and, therefore, the question of creating any nuisance did not arise. It also noticed in the alternative that even if it was so assumed, no evidence had been produced to establish any nuisance to the occupiers of the neighborhood buildings, 7. All these findings were affirmed by the first appellate authority and it specifically noticed on question of non-payment of rent that no notice for payment of house tax having been served upon the tenant, the tender made by him on the fist date of hearing was not invalid. 8. No evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court which could bring the case of the petitioners in any of the clauses to show that this is a finding without any evidence or that palpably erroneous findings have been recorded. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, contended that demand of property tax was specifically noticed in the main petition itself and it has been sufficient notice to the tenant. This argument is without any merit. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, contended that demand of property tax was specifically noticed in the main petition itself and it has been sufficient notice to the tenant. This argument is without any merit. Learned Rent Controller is concerned and has to decide the petition on the cause of action existed on the day of filing of the petition and not subsequent thereto. On the date of filing of the petition, no notice, admittedly, had been served upon the tenant, as such the plea of non-payment of rent inclusive of property tax could not be entertained. Further more in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 370 (S.C.), the tenant in any case is placed on a much better footing and has to be given an opportunity to pay rent even after filing of the petition. 9. In the circumstances afore-stated, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.