Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The tenant, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Courts below in favour of the landlord on one of the grounds namely of material alteration impairing the value of the building attributed to the tenant, is the revision petitioner before this Court. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurred with the contention of the tenant that the pleas of the landlord on the grounds of nonpayment of rent and the alleged change of user had not be unestablished. 2. While adverting to the material alteration alleged to have been made by the tenant, the Rent Controller had observed that the tenant had not merely removed the wooden door but annexed the Chabutra having a width and length of 3 x 6 for making it a part of the demised premise. The Rent Controller found that he constructed the walls on two sides of the Chabutra and also a roof on it and affixed the shutter which completed the process of annexing the said Chabutra in the demised shop. The act of the tenant in annexing the Chabutra had not merely increased the length of the demised shop itself but had also caused an additional burden on the intervening wall from where the tenant had removed the wooden door. The Rent Controller referred to several decisions of this Court that the material alteration will have to be always perceived from the stand point of the landlord and not with reference to any additional facilities which the tenant had secured. This finding is reflected in paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority affirmed such a finding and also held that even the letter to which the tenant relied on Ex.R.4 did not allow the tenant to raise any construction on the Chabutra and annexed it to the shop in question. A right which was given to a tenant to make the necessary repairs was not to be understood as making a concession for material alteration itself. The Appellate Authority doubted whether the conversion of the Chabutra amounted to carrying out any necessary repairs and found the nature of alteration was material enough and it went to impair the value and utility of the building. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully argues that what was done by the tenant was only a value addition and not an impairment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully argues that what was done by the tenant was only a value addition and not an impairment. While Courts have always held that every addition or alteration is not actionable, they have also cautioned that a material alteration, which is substantial and which may give rise to action by public authorities or that which could constitute an additional burden on the integrity of the existing building would certainly offer to the landlord a right to approach the Court to seek for eviction on such aground. 4. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the nature of alteration that the tenant had made was such as to render an impairment of the structure and I find no reason to interfere with the findings rendered by the respective authorities. Under the circumstances, civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. Time fore viction three months.