Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant, challenging the judgment of the learned appellate authority, vide which the appeal filed by the landladies was allowed, ordering ejectment of the tenant from the demises premises. 2. Facts in brief are that landladies filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the east Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the respondent tenant, seeking his ejectment from the demised premises, on the ground that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by converting the window into a door. It was alleged that the tenant without the written consent of the landladies had removed the window on the western side towards Bastian road and had converted it into an entrance and is using the same for ingress and engress to the room on rent with him and had also damaged floor of the room and by these additions and alterations he had materially impaired the value and utility of the building in question. In the written reply filed by the tenant, it was denied that the window had been converted into a door for the purpose of ingress and engress or that the floor had been damaged. After hearing both sides learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition holding that the landladies had failed to prove that the tenant had made alternations in the building in question thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the said building. Resultantly, the ejectment petition was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the landladies was accepted by the appellate authority, order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the ejectment petition filed by the landladies was allowed holding that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the building in question by converting the window into a door. Aggrieved against the same, tenant filed the present revision petition in this Court. No one came present on behalf of the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, in my opinion, the finding recorded by the learned appellate authority, regarding conversion of window into a door, is liable to be reversed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, in my opinion, the finding recorded by the learned appellate authority, regarding conversion of window into a door, is liable to be reversed. Similarly, the finding of learned appellate authority that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the room in question by said conversion is also liable to be reversed. 5. As referred to above, case of the landladies in the ejectment petition was that one year prior to the filing of the ejectment petition, the tenant without the written consent of the landladies had removed the window on the western side towards Bastian road and had converted the same into an entrance and was using the same for the purpose of ingress and engress to the room on rent with him, and had also damaged the floor of that room and by these, additions and alterations, he had materially impaired the value and utility of the building. The allegation of the landladies was denied by the tenant. It was denied that the window had been convert into a door for the purpose of ingress and engress or that the building had been damaged. In the ejectment petition it was nowhere alleged by the landladies that there were any iron bars fitted in the said window which were removed by the tenant. As referred to above, it was only alleged that the window had been removed and converted into entrance. Both sides examined experts who supported the case of their pay masters. As per report submitted by Kuljit Singh, Overseer, dated 9.9.1984, Ex.A3, the tenant had made entry through window by removing fixed jalis and glazed panelled leaf. The entry has been made by battened door instead of window. Tenant also uses two sills of cement concrete as steps. As per Jatinder Kumar, Architect, in his report dated 12.2.1985 Ex.R2, the window is fixed at sill level and is used for ventilation purposes. The landladies examined AW1, Smt Harjit Kaur, one of the landladies, who is also the attorney of the other landlady. Tenant also uses two sills of cement concrete as steps. As per Jatinder Kumar, Architect, in his report dated 12.2.1985 Ex.R2, the window is fixed at sill level and is used for ventilation purposes. The landladies examined AW1, Smt Harjit Kaur, one of the landladies, who is also the attorney of the other landlady. She deposed that about 2-1/2 or 2-3/4 years back, the tenant had broken the window on eastern side towards Bastian road and had converted the same into entrance and is using for coming and going to the property in dispute and has also broken the window and the floor of the room had also been damaged, the floor and plaster of walls is also broken. She stated that the property in dispute had been materially impaired in its value and utility. During cross examination on behalf of the tenant, she stated that there were iron bars fitted in the windows but she could not give details. She denied that there were no iron bars fitted in the window or that no iron bars were removed by the tenant. AW2 Kuljit Singh had proved his report Ex.A3. During cross examination, he stated that he had not noticed any iron bars sign at the time of his visit. AW3 Kishan Singh also deposed that the tenant had removed the window and had converted the same into entrance for ingress and egress for the room and that the floor of the room had also been damaged. During the cross examination, he stated that he did not know the exact size of the window but it was of standard size. In order to refute this evidence led by the landladies, Sant Ram tenant appeared as RW1 and deposed that he had never used the window as a door for the purpose of ingress and egress. He stated that previously the window was 3 feet from the plinth area and now it had been decreased to 2-1/2 feet. During the cross examination, he deposed that the floor of the room was not broken at any place. Fie denied the suggestion that the window towards western Bastian road had been removed by him or had been converted into a door or that the ingress and egress for the room was through the said window which had been converted into a door. Fie denied the suggestion that the window towards western Bastian road had been removed by him or had been converted into a door or that the ingress and egress for the room was through the said window which had been converted into a door. He stated that there was only one window in the said room and that there were no steps made by him under the said window towards Bastiun road. He stated that footpath had been made by the Municipal Corporation and is just 2-1/2 feet from the level of the window. He denied that they had constructed the steps or that they were entering into the room through this window. RW2-Mohan Lal also supported the case of the tenant. RW3 Jatinder Kumar, Architect, proved his report, Ex.R2. 6. After going through the entire evidence led by the parties, in my opinion, it could not be said that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the shop in question, either by damaging the floor/plaster of the wall or by converting the window into a door. Nothing has come on record to show that in fact the window in question had been converted into a door. Had it been a door, its level would have been upto the floor level. Even as per the report of Kuljit Singh, Ex.A3, it is not a door upto the floor level. On the other hand, two still of cement concrete were being used as steps. This would show that ,n fact it is not a door but is still a window. The mere allegation of the landlady in the witness box and her witnesses that the window had been converted into a door, cannot be accepted, in the absence of any other proof. So far as iron bars are concerned, even the landladies in the ejectment petition had to plead that there were any iron bars. However, Kuljit Singh, while appearing in the witness box as AW2, himself had stated that he had not noticed any sign of iron bars, at the time of his visit. He stated that if the iron bars were removed, the signs of removal of iron bars could be noticed. However, Kuljit Singh, while appearing in the witness box as AW2, himself had stated that he had not noticed any sign of iron bars, at the time of his visit. He stated that if the iron bars were removed, the signs of removal of iron bars could be noticed. Thus, in the absence of any proof regarding the existence and later on removal of the iron bars, in my opinion, it could not be said that the tenant had converted the window into a door by removing the iron bars. 7. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, appellate authority had erred in law in holding that the tenant was liable to be ejected from the shop in question on lie ground that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the shop in question by converting the window into a door. Accordingly, I reverse the findings of the appellate authority in this regard. 8. For the reasons recorded above, present revision petition is allowed, order passed by the appellate authority, ordering ejectment of the tenant, is set aside and ejectment petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.