Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The respondent landlady Smt. Bassi Devi filed a petition under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against Faqir Chand petitioner-tenant for his eviction from shop No. 5925/3, Chhota Bazar, Ambala City, on the ground that value and utility of the shop in question has been materially impaired by the petitioner-tenant. The Rent Controller, Ambala City vide his judgment dated 11.9.1991 accepted the plea of the landlady and held that the value and utility of the demised premises had been impaired by the tenant and, therefore, ordered ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute. The appeal filed by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, Ambala City, was also dismissed vide judgment dated 5.5.1984. It is against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the present revision has been filed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Smt. Bassi Devi rented out Shop No. 5925/3, situated in Chhota Bazar, Ambala City to petitioner Faquir Chand on monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The rent was enhanced from time to time and was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month by consent of the parties. The landlady filed the present petition for the eviction of the tenant on the grounds:- (a) that the tenant had removed the entry gate of the front room of the shop in question on 20.2.1988 and had installed a rolling shutter of iron; (b) that the tenant had changed the existing wooden roof of the rear room and had installed girder and Ballas and more so, in the rear room itself the tenant, without the instructions of the landlady had further created a big hole of about 3x3 diameter. The first ground was not pressed by the landlady. However, as far as the question of changing the existing wooden roof of the rear room was concerned, evidence was led by the landlady to show that the roof of the rear room has been replaced by putting a girder and Ballas instead of wooden roof. This fact was corroborated from the report of the Local Commissioner Ex.P-3 as well as from the statement of PW-1 Bansi Lai and PW-2 Mangat Ram who stated that Girder and Wooden Ballas had been installed. This fact was corroborated from the report of the Local Commissioner Ex.P-3 as well as from the statement of PW-1 Bansi Lai and PW-2 Mangat Ram who stated that Girder and Wooden Ballas had been installed. A Local Commissioner had been appointed who visited the site in question and reported as follows:- "That the shop consists of two rooms as shown in the site plan, I saw the roofs of the both rooms and found that the roof of the rear room was reconstructed, I found that all the "KARIS" in the half portion of the rear rooms roof, Girder, FATIES, over the KARIS in whole of the roof and the hole containing six iron rods are new ones. The material used in the roofs of both the rooms was painted with red colour by the occupier of the shop, but the distinction between the material of the rear rooms roof and that of the front rooms roof was crystal clear just at the very first glance. All the constructive material i.e., the Karies, Faties over the Karies and rafter used in the roof of the front room were too old. The construction of the hole in the roof of the rear room is also reconstructed. For clarification, it is mentioned here that the Karies is almost half of the portion of the rear rooms roof appeard to be old ones but there setting was quite new one. Not only this the Faties over these Karies are quite, new as mentioned above, which makes the things clear beyond doubt that, the whole of the roof was reconstructed. There is a great difference between the nature of the Karies used in the rear room and those of used in the front room. The roof of the rear room was reconstructed and that or the front roof is very old and here is my report. Further, I found not necessity at all to see the roofs of both the rooms from the upper sides as the things became clear without any doubt just at the very glance from inside." 3. On the other hand, it was contended by the tenant that the landlady has orally given her consent to the change of the roof of the rear room. On the other hand, it was contended by the tenant that the landlady has orally given her consent to the change of the roof of the rear room. The Rent Controller rejected the oral consent as pleaded by the tenant and on the basis of the report Ex.P-3 given by the Local Commissioner as well as on the basis of the statements of PW1 and PW2 held that the value and reality of the building in question has been materially impaired and consequently ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority, Ambala, who after going into the entire evidence led by the parties dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. It is against this judgment that the present revision has been filed. 4. A perusal of the impugned judgments of both the courts as well as report of the Local Commissioner coupled with the statements of PW1 and PW2 shows that the petilioner-tenant had replaced the roof of the rear room of the demised premises without consent of the landlady. The Local Commissioner in his report has stated that the roof of the rear room was reconstructed. He has also mentioned that all the Karies, Faties and Girder were new ones. A hole was also created in the roof having six iron rods and the said iron rods were new. It is thus, clear that the petitioner-tenant had replaced the roof of the rear room of the shop in dispute and also placed Girder and Ballas in the roof to give support of the Karies and Faties. Thus, in my considered opinion, replacing of the roof the rear room with Girder, Ballas and Faties definitely amounts to impairment. The replacing of the roof without the permission of the landlady amounts to materially impairing the value and utility of the shop in dispute. Moreover, as has been found by the Local Commissioner, opening of a hole in the roof also amounts to impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. It is, thus, clear that as the material changes have been made in the rear room of the shop in dispute without consent of the landlady, therefore, the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. In view of the above, both the Courts have rightly ordered the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. It is, thus, clear that as the material changes have been made in the rear room of the shop in dispute without consent of the landlady, therefore, the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. In view of the above, both the Courts have rightly ordered the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present revision and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the shop in dispute.