JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Gocl, J.—Petitioner is the landlord, and is being referred to as such hereinafter. He filed eviction petition against the respondent, who is being referred to hereinafter as the tenant. 2. Eviction of the tenant was sought from the premises on two grounds, namely non payment of arrears of rent as well as additions and alterations having been carried out in the demised premises by removing the concrete partition walls of the tenanted premises. Then having put up a wooden partition and a door in the premises in question. These acts materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. 3. So far plea of non payment of arrears of rent is concerned in the petition that was initially filed, arrears cLalmed were for the period January, 1988 up till this date. This petition was filed on 26th July, 1994 before the Rent Controller, Dalhousie, District Chamba. Fact remains that on 4.3.1995 rent cLalmed was tendered alongwith interest and costs as assessed. This fact finds mention in the order sheet of the said date and there is also a receipt placed on the record from April, 1992 to 1994. This amount was received under protest by the learned Counsel. Receipt to this effect is at page 34 of the trial Court file. At page 35 there is statement of the learned Counsel for the landlord before the Rent Controller, that rent as cLalmed in the original petition has been paid by the respondent (tenant) during the pendency of the suit which was received under protest and for remaining period, separate petition would be filed. 4. Record of the trial Court further shows that application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, was filed for withdrawal of the petition due to certain technical defects in the pleadings. This prayer was, however, declined. Thereafter an application was filed on 16.1.1998 for amendment of the petition which was allowed. Thus, amended petition came to be filed before the Rent Controller wherein rent from July, 1994 at the rate of Rs. 100 per month alongwith 9 per cent interest was cLalmed till date. In the relief clause of the amended petition it was prayed that rent from July, 1994 till disposal of the petition, plus interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum be also allowed. 5. 100 per month alongwith 9 per cent interest was cLalmed till date. In the relief clause of the amended petition it was prayed that rent from July, 1994 till disposal of the petition, plus interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum be also allowed. 5. Original as well as amended petition both were contested and resisted by the tenant. His stand was that no additions and alterations have been carried out, as alleged. Similarly, the plea of partition walls having been removed was also denied. She further disputed that after removal of concrete partition walls a wooden partition has been put up. According to her there was one wooden partition in between a shop having a door connecting them which was in existence. Identical petition was filed in the year 1967 by Ram Prasad Khanna, who had inducted tenants husband of the respondent as tenant. It was withdrawn on 6.9.1968. Plea of non-payment of rent was not admitted since the rent as originally cLalmed stood paid. Rejoinder was filed to this reply. Pleas of alterations etc. were reiterated. 6. In this background trial Court framed the following issues and decided issues Nos. 1, 2, 2-A in favour of the landlord and issue No. 2-B partly in his favour and thus ordered ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises : 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged? OPA 2. Whether the respondent has made additions and alterations in the demised premises without the consent of the petitioner as alleged? OPA 2-A. Whether the respondent has removed the concrete partition wall and converted the disputed premises into one shop and materially diminished the utility of the building as alleged? OPA 2-B. Whether a wooden partition has been erected between two shops and a new door has been opened, which have materially diminished the utility of the building as alleged? OPA 3. Relief. 5. When this matter was taken up in appeal, order of Rent Controller was reversed and consequently appeal was allowed. Thus ejectment petition was dismissed. Against this order of the Appellate Authority, landlord preferred civil revision No. 113 of 2000 before this Court. It was dismissed on 11.4.2002. Review Petition No. 11 of 2000 to recall the judgment in C.R. No. 113 of 2000 was also dismissed on 4th June, 2002 by this Court. 6. Thus ejectment petition was dismissed. Against this order of the Appellate Authority, landlord preferred civil revision No. 113 of 2000 before this Court. It was dismissed on 11.4.2002. Review Petition No. 11 of 2000 to recall the judgment in C.R. No. 113 of 2000 was also dismissed on 4th June, 2002 by this Court. 6. Against the order passed in the revision petition No. 113 of 2000 as well as review petition No. 11 of 2000, landlord filed civil appeals No. 1605 and 1606 of 2003. Leave was granted on 21st February, 2003 in petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 15057 and 15058 of 2002 against the aforesaid two judgments/orders in this court. Order passed by the Supreme Court in these two appeals is as under :— "Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties. The High Court, had dismissed the review petition mainly on the ground that there was no Power of Attorney by Vir Khanna, landlord, in his personal capacity, authorizing his son Rohit Khanna. This view of the High Court is not correct. On this short ground alone, the judgment under challenge is set aside. This matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the same on merits. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- C.J.I. New Delhi February 21, 2003 Sd/-A.R. Lakshmanan, J." 7. It is in this background that the present matter has come up before the court again. Since both the appeals have been allowed by the Supreme Court in terms of its order dated 21.3.2003 supra and the matter was remitted to this court to decide the same on merits, this revision petition was finally heard. 8. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the landlord submitted that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is contrary to proved facts on record. According to him tender being short and value and utility of demised premsies having been materially imparied due to acts of the tenant, had been established by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence which is legally acceptable, as such the impugned order cannot stand test of judicial scrutiny and consequently the appeal deserves to be allowed. All these pleas have been controverted by the learned Counsel for the tenant. They urged that the tenant was not in arrears of rent. All these pleas have been controverted by the learned Counsel for the tenant. They urged that the tenant was not in arrears of rent. Regarding having made additions and alterations, thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the premises in question, is nothing but a plea coined by the landlord who is out to throw out the tenant from the tenanted premises. Firstly father of the landlord, and now he (landlord), has filed this petition. Further according to them no case is made out for seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises on the basis of the pleas which are covered by issue Nos. 1, 2, 2-A and 2-B supra, so as to call for interference with the impugned order. 9. First dealing with the plea that the tenant was in arrears of rent and/or its non payment of arrears of rent urged on behalf of the landlord. It may be noted that admittedly there is no rent note in writing between the parties. Therefore, the parties have to fall back on the provisions of the Rent Act. Here Section 14(2)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), needs to be noted: "(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the building or rent due from him in the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable." 10. Admittedly there is no agreement of tenancy between the parties, thus the rent is payable by the last day of the month next following for which the rent is payable. In this behalf it may be appropriately noted that order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller on 31st March, 1999. Findings on issue No. 1 were as under :— "......After the amendment of the petition, arrears of rent w.e.f. July, 1994 have accordingly been cLalmed, which have not been paid. During the pendency of the suit, except for the payment from April, 1992 to June, 1994, no other payment has been made nor any receipt was produced by the respondent so as to establish the payment of arrears of rent thereafter. During the pendency of the suit, except for the payment from April, 1992 to June, 1994, no other payment has been made nor any receipt was produced by the respondent so as to establish the payment of arrears of rent thereafter. Thus it implies that tenant/respondent has only made the payment of rent alongwith interest w.e.f. April, 1992 to June, 1994 and thereafter he is yet in the arrears of rent which the landlord is entitled to cLalm. The payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. April, 1992 to June, 1994 also reveals that tenant has made payment of interest on the said arrears voluntarily at the rate of about 9 per cent per annum as cLalmed by the petitioner. Therefore, to my mind, the 9 per cent interest per annum which has already been paid on the arrears of rent w.e.f. April, 1992 to June, 1994 shall be reasonable interest which is required to be paid on the arrears of rent from 1st July, 1994 onwards. The issue at hands is thus decided in favour of the petitioner." 11. Vide receipt, photostat copy whereof is on the file of appellate authority at page 33, rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per month w.e.f. August, 1994 to April, 1999 besides interest and costs stood paid. It may be noted here that at the time of hearing, receipt of this amount was not disputed on behalf of the landlord. Its effect will be discussed hereinafter. 12. A narration of the above facts clearly spells out that rent stood paid w.e.f. August, 1994 to April 1999, that too within the period of 30 days, as envisaged by 3rd proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of the Act. In view of this, coupled with the fact that there was no written agreement fixing the date by which the rent was payable, it can safely be held that the rent paid for the month of April, 1999 needs to be adjusted towards the rent for the month of July, 1994. Because for the month of April, 1999 rent would become payable on the last day of the next month following that for which the rent is payable. In this view of the matter, plea urged on behalf of the landlord based on non payment of rent for the month of July, 1994 does not hold good and is accordingly rejected. 13. In this view of the matter, plea urged on behalf of the landlord based on non payment of rent for the month of July, 1994 does not hold good and is accordingly rejected. 13. Now coming to the other plea urged on behalf of Mr. Sood that there is enough legally acceptable evidence to reverse the findings of the learned Appellate Authority below while dismissing the ejectment on other ground, i.e. what was covered by issues No. 2, 2-A and 2-B. 14. In this behalf brief reference needs to be made to the evidence produced by the parties. It may be observed here that neither the landlord nor the tenant stepped into witness box. PW-1 Rohit Khanna is the attorney and son of landlord, whereas RW-1 Kuldip Singh is also the son and attorney of his mother, i.e. the tenant of the premises in question. Another fact that needs to be noted here is that there is neither any building plan qua the premises when those were let out to suggest what was the state of the tenanted premises at that time or as they existed at the time of filing this ejectment petition. Similarly, no sanctioned building plan of the premises has been placed on record so as to substantiate the plea by the landlord. 15. Rohit Khanna while appearing as PW-1 in the witness box stated that respondent is a tenant. Witness had given shop on rent to her which is Bengali Sweet Shop and is at G.P.O. This property is owned by his father, i.e. landlord. He further stated that his grand-father had first let out this shop to Babu Singh, who was her husband. He died in 1973. After his death, Bindrawati became tenant. This shop is being used for sale of sweets. Three shops were given on rent. Their approximate measurement was 25 feet x 7 feet and 32 feet x 23 feet, (two shops). Monthly rent was Rs. 100 of these shops for the last so many years. Rent had not been paid from 1984 till date. These shops are entered into municipal records. Big alterations have been made in these shops without landlords permission. These are, a big water tank, structure of cement on a wooden base has been put up. A diesel Bhatti is put up there. It is used by electricity which causes lot of sound. These shops are entered into municipal records. Big alterations have been made in these shops without landlords permission. These are, a big water tank, structure of cement on a wooden base has been put up. A diesel Bhatti is put up there. It is used by electricity which causes lot of sound. When shops were given, sweets were not prepared inside it. Now the tenant was using inside the premises gas, coal and kerosene. At the spot there is only one shop after removal of partition. He has placed on record photographs Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/I and their negatives are Ex, PW-1/1J to Ex. PW-l/R. In these photographs, premises in question are depicted he has given details thereof. According to him these things cause lot of disturbance to him and there is apprehension of premises catching fire. He denied the suggestion that in terms of Ex. P-l (power of attorney) witness is not authorised to make any statement. Shops were taken in the year 1939. Regarding these Bhattis (burners), his grand-father (Ram Prasad Khanna) having filed a suit, which was dismissed; this witness showed ignorance. He further feigned ignorance that Ram Prasad had filed suit for removal of partition which was decided against him. He admitted that partitions were broken long ago. When and how many years, he was unable to say. He further showed his ignorance that when plastic tanks came in the market. When sweets were being prepared outside, witness was not born. He further stated that this is a matter when premises were let out. It was meant only for sale of sweets and not for Halwai purposes. However, he did not have any agreement. He asked the employees to desist from the said acts, who advised the witness to get in touch with the tenant. He did not talk to Bindrawati in that behalf then. He was unable to give the date and month, when he asked Bindrawati to stop the work. But it was in the year 1994. He voluntarily stated that when FIR was lodged, it was during this period that she was asked. He expressed his ignorance that his grand-father since 1965 had been attempting to get premises vacated by filing cases. He further denied the suggestion that this case has been instituted without instructions of his father. 16. PW-2 is Balwant Kumar. He is Clerk-cum-Record Keeper from the Municipal Committee, Dalhousie. He expressed his ignorance that his grand-father since 1965 had been attempting to get premises vacated by filing cases. He further denied the suggestion that this case has been instituted without instructions of his father. 16. PW-2 is Balwant Kumar. He is Clerk-cum-Record Keeper from the Municipal Committee, Dalhousie. According to him he had brought the summoned record. Assessment Registers of 1968, Sr. Nos. 277, 278 and 279 had been brought by him. As per this register at all the three Sr. Nos. 474 to 476, name of occupier is Bindrawati, at Sr. No. 477 is Trilok Chand Gupta. As per register, annual value and amount of tax payable of Sr. Nos. 474 to 476 was 32, 40, 18 and 16, 20 and 24. Annual rent of Sr. No. 477 was 96 and amount of tax payable was Rs. 48. Property Rent Book for 1972-73 has been destroyed as after 3 years of the audit such record is destroyed. Latest Property Rent Book was with the witness. 17. PW-3 Tarlok Chand is another tenant under the landlord in the adjoining premises, where he is running confectionery shop. Per him, he had taken one shop on rent. In his cross examination he admitted that this shop was taken in the year 1954. Witness knew Babu Singh as also the tenant. They have a Halwai shop. He had seen it. At present these shops are in the same condition as they were in the year 1954. 18. After amendment of eviction petition, PW-1 again appeared on 22.4.1998. Now he stated that after removing of stone partition in three shops, those have been converted into one and a wooden partition has also been fixed. This was in the month of May, 1994. Witness asked Bindrawati to desist from such acts. A hole has also been put in the roof of the lintel which has weakned it (lintel). In his cross examination, he stated that in May, 1994 regarding removal of partition wall a notice was issued by him which has been placed on file. It was issued by a lawyer. Walls were removed in his, as well as Kunj Lals presence in the month of May, 1994. 19. Next witness is Kunj Lal. According to him the witness knew the landlord, PW-1 Rohit Khanna and tenant Bindrawati. He stated that in May, 1994 there were three shops with the tenant. It was issued by a lawyer. Walls were removed in his, as well as Kunj Lals presence in the month of May, 1994. 19. Next witness is Kunj Lal. According to him the witness knew the landlord, PW-1 Rohit Khanna and tenant Bindrawati. He stated that in May, 1994 there were three shops with the tenant. After removal of two walls three shops have been converted into one. These walls were Dhajji. After removal of two walls one has been put up which is wooden. In his cross examination he has admitted that he is the Manager of the hotel of Rohit Khanna for the last many years. Premises were in the same condition as they were existing now. 20. RW-1 is Kuldip Singh, son of the tenant. According to him, premises in question were taken by his father on rent from Ram Prasad Khanna. His father died in the year 1973. Thereafter his mother became tenant. He is the attorney authorised vide Ex. DA. His mother is 85 years of age and is unable to move. This power of attorney was given to him for contesting the case. He further stated that Ram Prasad in the year 1966 had instituted a suit against his father which was withdrawn. Copy of order passed in this case is Ex. DA and of petition is Ex. DC. He further stated that wooden wall as it existed earlier, continues to be there. They have not removed any walls nor have they put up wooden wall or door after removing the concrete walls. No new door has been put up. He further stated that no tampering has been done with the building. As it existed earlier, it continues to be in the same state. In cross examination while admitting that shop was let out by Ram Prasad to Babu Singh, his father on rent, there were two shops. Bindrawati is his mother. Shops were taken on rent in the year 1944. Witness was born in 1948. He denied that when shops were taken there were concrente partition walls. Shop is being run by the Manager/ Servant. He admitted that for the last two and half years he is working in the Municipal Committee. He also admitted that Bir Khanna permanently resides at Jullandhar. Witness was born in 1948. He denied that when shops were taken there were concrente partition walls. Shop is being run by the Manager/ Servant. He admitted that for the last two and half years he is working in the Municipal Committee. He also admitted that Bir Khanna permanently resides at Jullandhar. However, he denied the suggestion that taking advantage of his (Bir Khannas) absence, the witness removed Pakki Dhajji walls and instead put up a wooden partition wall, or having put up a new door. This is the entire oral evidence. 21. So far Ex. DB is concerned, it is an order passed by Senior Sub Judge, Chamba allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition which was dismissed as withdrawn. Ex. DC is the copy of petition under Section 13 of Act No. 3 of 1949, (East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949). Grounds pleaded to seek eviction of Babu Singh (husband of the tenant) were of non payment of arrears of rent. Tenanted premises having been sub-let without the consent of the landlord. Those were being used for a purpose other than for which those were let out. As shops were let out for sale of sweetmeats whereas furnaces for preparing and manufacturing the sweetmeats having been installed without the consent of the landlord. Building being of wood, installation of furnaces causes a great danger to the whole building. Alterations having been made in the shops without the consent of the landlord and thereby value and utility thereof having been impaired materially. Respondent had converted the shops into one by removing the partition wall of two shops. 22. So far photographs are concerned, photograph Ex. P-l shows there being a counter and partition of bamboos. PW-l/A shows that there is a cemented platform whereon a plastic water storage tank has been installed. Below it appears to be place for cleaning the utensils etc. PWs-l/B and 1/C do not improve the case of the landlord. In Ex. PW-l/D there is water storage tank plus a Bhatti (burner) and other material put in the shop. Likewise in Ex. PW-l/E some persons are in the process of cooking etc. wherein utensils to prepare stuff are lying. From PW-l/F nothing is made out. PW-1/G and PW-l/H only show some partition of bamboos etc. there. 23. In Ex. PW-l/D there is water storage tank plus a Bhatti (burner) and other material put in the shop. Likewise in Ex. PW-l/E some persons are in the process of cooking etc. wherein utensils to prepare stuff are lying. From PW-l/F nothing is made out. PW-1/G and PW-l/H only show some partition of bamboos etc. there. 23. By referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan and another v. Krishan Kumar Sood, 1994 Supplement (1) SCC 437, Mr. Sood pointed out that in the face of this decision the impugned order on the ground of non payment of rent has to be set aside. So far ratio Laid down by this judgment is concerned, the same was not even disputed on behalf of the tenant. However, it was clarified and in my view rightly, that arrears of rent from August, 1994 to 30.4.1999 with interest and costs stood paid. At the risk of repetition it may be observed here that correctness of photostat copy of the receipt which is there on the file of the appellate authority was not disputed at the time of hearing. Rent for the month of April, 1999, as already noted, was to become payable in the month of May, 1999. Therefore, it can rightly be appropriated and adjusted towards the rent of July, 1994. This plea stands already rejected in the preceding paras. 24. Now coming to the plea of the landlord that the value of the premises in question stood materially impaired because of the above noted unauthorised acts on the part of the tenant. In order to succeed it was incumbent upon the landlord to have placed on record legally acceptable evidence to the effect, that what was the condition of the premises when those were let out, and at what point of time those additions and alterations were carried out. Here again even if the version of the landlord as set-up in the ejectment petition, as well as in the evidence produced by him is accepted, still for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. 25. PW-1 had appeared twice. Firstly before the additional issues were framed and .then again. When he appeared for the second time, he specifically pleaded that this entire alterations etc. was carried out in the month of May, 1994. 25. PW-1 had appeared twice. Firstly before the additional issues were framed and .then again. When he appeared for the second time, he specifically pleaded that this entire alterations etc. was carried out in the month of May, 1994. Admittedly, he did not let out the premises nor the respondent is the original tenant. In case what he stated was correct, then what is pleaded in Ex, DC was not correct. But he is belied by this document, i.e. Ex. DC. It is a certified copy of the earlier eviction petition filed by his (PWls) grand-father. This ejectment petition was filed as far back as in the year 1966 to be precise on 14.9.1966 when the original landlord as well as tenant were alive and litigation ensued. Plea of alteration etc. besides other pleas of nuisance etc. were set up as grounds of eviction in Ex. DC. Therefore, the statements of PW-1 and his Manager are not correct, thus not worthy of credence at all that the alterations etc. were carried out in May, 1994 as alleged by both of them. 26. Further there is no other evidence to suggest nature and type of premises as they originally existed either from the contemporaneous record or from the record of Municipal Corporation. Similarly, there is no evidence of any expert to show that how and in what manner the value and utility, as alleged, had been impaired by the so called acts of the tenant. Thus there is self serving statement of PW-1 and unreliable evidence of PW-2. Above all PW-3, the other tenant under the landlord who is occupying the shop next to the premises (in view of the statement of PW-2), had categorically stated that he had been seeing the tenanted premises since 1954 in the same condition when he was cross examined oh behalf of the tenant. 27. When he was cross examined regarding the previous litigation between his grand-father and husband of the tenant, PW-1 as noted above chose a convenient way to over-come it by saying that he was not aware. Even when he appeared for the second time. He did not say a word in that behalf. Although these two documents Ex. DB and Ex. DC were already there on the record as the witness was confronted with those when he had appeared for the first time. Even when he appeared for the second time. He did not say a word in that behalf. Although these two documents Ex. DB and Ex. DC were already there on the record as the witness was confronted with those when he had appeared for the first time. In my view he had no answer to the petition that was filed by his grand-father, Ram Prasad Khanna. 28. Here another plea urged by Mr. Sood needs to be noted. He placed reliance on paragraphs 8 and 13 of the ejectment petition and the reply to these paras. For ready reference, both these paragraphs from the petition as well as reply to those are extracted hereinbelow :— "8. Details of accommodation available together with the particular as regards grounds area, garden and out houses, if any. Shop : 1) 25 x7 = 175 S.ft. Shop. 2) 32 x 23 + 736 Shop. 3) Sq. ft. Paras 4 to 10 : That paras 4 to 10 of the petitions are admitted correct. 13. Rentable value as entered in the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee or notified area committee as the case may be. Emporium Middle (1972-last property rent-book of the 1973) B. 4. 350/- B. 5 400/- B. 6. 600/- (three shops). 13. That para No. 13 is incorrect and denied." 29. Thus according to him there is admission regarding three shops being there on the part of the tenant. Therefore, it has to be taken to be as proof on the basis of such admission that three shops were let out those having been converted into two as noted hereinabove. This plea cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that premises being three shops for identification is one thing. Carrying out additions and alterations so as to enable a landlord to seek eviction had to be proved as a question of fact by cogent and reliable evidence. There is none. In this view of the matter, admission of shops being three in number in reply to para 8 cannot be read in isolation or divorced from other pleas set-up by the tenant while contesting and resisting his ejectment from the premises in question. 30. So far plea of landlord that by making hole in the lintel the same having been weakened is concerned, it is purely a self serving statement of PW-1. 30. So far plea of landlord that by making hole in the lintel the same having been weakened is concerned, it is purely a self serving statement of PW-1. Reason being that it was for the expert to state that what is the extent of the so called hole and in what manner it has weakened the lintel. Accordingly the findings recorded in para 10 by the Rent Controller need to be accepted and upheld in this behalf. Especially there being variance in pleadings and proof. And also because the evidence of RW-1 is untrustworthy and unreliable. Question of disproving anything by a party would only arise when his opponent proves a fact. It hardly needs to be explained that on the technical aspect this is a case of no evidence. 31. Another plea urged on behalf of the parties was regarding scope of Section 24 of the Rent Act. Learned Counsel on a question of law were not at variance that it is not like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, this court can always call for and examine record relating to an order passed under the Act and satisfy itself about the legality or propriety of such an order or proceedings and then pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. So far Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is concerned, peeping hole under it is extremely narrow and in view of the interpretation being given to it, it has been almost, if not in its entirety, further narrowed. That is not the situation while examining a case under Section 24(5) of the Act. No doubt, ordinarily this court would not re-appraise and reappreciate the evidence while considering a revision, as in the present case, but this embargo is not absolute, so as to completely shut down this court from looking to the evidence and then examine its legality, as well as propriety. Thus after examining this case under Section 24(5) of the Act in the light of above discussion, I am satisfied that while passing the impugned order, learned Appellate Authority below has neither committed any impropriety nor illegality so as to call for interference in this revision. 32. No other point is urged. 33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. 32. No other point is urged. 33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. Landlord shall pay costs of the tenant before the Rent Controller, first appellate Court as well as this Court. -