Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The landlords are petitioners before this Court, they filed a petition for eviction of the tenant-respondent Ram Chander. The ground on which the eviction was sought was the material impairment of the value and utility of the shop in question. Although other grounds were also taken but only ground pressed before learned Rent Controller was materially impairment, 2. The learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant-respondent. However, in appeal filed by him, the learned Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 3. The landlords are now impugning the order of the Appellate Authority. 4. Sh. Jaswant Jain, learned counsel appearing for the landlord-petitioners has vehemently argued that the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller was most just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference was required in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence on record clearly shows that the tenant had entirely covered the chowk of the shop in question and consequently has impaired the value and utility of the premises. 5. On the other hand, Shri Harpreet Singh Giani, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-respondent has submitted that in fact as per their own case proved by the landlords, it was only a tin shed which has been raised by the tenant and since it was merely a temporary structure, there was no case for holding that it was a material impairment of the value and utility of the shop. 6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I feel that the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority was absolutely just and proper and no case for any interference is made out. It is not in dispute that the tenant had merely erected four poles to cover the chowk by raising a tin shed, which was only a temporary structure. It could not said that the said act of tenant would cause any material impairment in the value and utility of the shop in question. 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.