JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - Law with regard to scope of interference in a Civil Revision, filed under the provisions of Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, is now well settled. 2. Petitioner Shri Rajesh Chauhan, hereinafter referred to as the landlord, filed a petition for ejectment against respondent Rattan Chand, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, which stands dismissed vide order dated 30.3.2000, passed by Rent Controller (3), Shimla, in Case No. 54/2 of 96/95, titled as Rajesh Chauhan v. Rattan Chand. Appeal filed by the landlord also stands dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Ground of ejectment being that the tenant committed such acts, which are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the tenanted premises. According to the landlord, petitioner raised additional construction of a toilet, blocking the drainage, resultantly endangering the premises. 4. The Rent Controller found the tenant to have raised construction of a toilet, only in compliance of statutory provisions and that too after obtaining prior consent of the landlord and obtaining necessary sanctions and permissions. Such findings of fact stand affirmed by the Appellate Authority, in terms of the impugned order. Tenant is not aggrieved of that part of the order, whereby he has been directed to pay enhanced rent, in terms of provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, Court is of the considered view that the authorities below have completely and correctly appreciated entire material. Much reliance is placed on the testimony of expert Shri Surjit Singh (PW-2), who has opined, in terms of report (Ex.PW-2/B), that construction has impaired the value and utility of the premises. There is sufficient evidence on record to discredit such report. Tenant, prior to raising construction had not only obtained consent of the landlord but had also applied for and obtained necessary sanctions and permission under the Municipal Laws. 6. The fact that the construction is not in violation of sanctions cannot be disputed. Apart from bald assertion of an expert, there is nothing on record to establish that drainage of the building stands obstructed in any manner. In fact, had it been so, by now the building itself would have suffered substantial damage. 6. The fact that the construction is not in violation of sanctions cannot be disputed. Apart from bald assertion of an expert, there is nothing on record to establish that drainage of the building stands obstructed in any manner. In fact, had it been so, by now the building itself would have suffered substantial damage. Testimonies of the witnesses, both that of the landlord and the tenant, have been correctly and completely appreciated by the authorities below. 7. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the authorities below are illegal, perverse and/or erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.