JUDGMENT Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.:- This is revision petition filed by Phullan Rani against concurrent judgments of learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, whereby petition filed by landlord-respondent seeking her ejectment from the demised premises, was allowed on the ground of making material additions and alterations in the demised premises. The landlord respondent described the material alterations in the demised premises by revision-petitioner in his petition as follows:- “A) xx xx xx xx xx B) That after the death of her husband, Shri Charanji Lal, respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the house in question. She has constructed a room in the open courtyard, removed the wooden door of the opening into the courtyard at the ground floor of the staircase leading to upper storey and closed this opening with bricks permanently, which closures formed one of the walls of the said newly constructed room without the permission in writing of the petitioner as well as from the Municipal Committee, Ambala Sadar, Ambala Cantt. These alternations/additions have not only reduced the size of the courtyard at the ground floor but also diminished the valuable amenity of passage, light and air. By closing the door of the staircase permanently and erecting a new room, she altered the structural position of the house in question and diminished the utility and value of the same materially.” 2. The revision-petitioner denied any addition or alteration in the tenanted premises and alleged that it is in the same condition as it was let out. However, witnesses examined by revision-petitioner admitted the additions and alterations in the demised premises. RW-1 Jasbir Singh stated that the revision-petitioner was let out one hall room, one kitchen, bathroom, latrine and small verandah while at present there are two latrines in the property out of which one is old one and one is new one. RW-2 Naresh Kumar admitted that flush latrine has been constructed in the courtyard. He also admitted the site plan Ex. PW-2/2 produced by landlord-respondent as correct. Surinder Kumar, who appeared as RW-3 denied that any latrine was constructed in the courtyard but termed the same as bathroom. He, however, admits that there is chaukhat in the stairs. 3. RW-2 Naresh Kumar admitted that flush latrine has been constructed in the courtyard. He also admitted the site plan Ex. PW-2/2 produced by landlord-respondent as correct. Surinder Kumar, who appeared as RW-3 denied that any latrine was constructed in the courtyard but termed the same as bathroom. He, however, admits that there is chaukhat in the stairs. 3. On the proof of construction raised in the courtyard, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner took the plea before learned Rent Controller that there is no evidence that the alleged construction has diminished the value and utility of the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence on record observed as follows:- (i) That construction raised by the tenant in the courtyard has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. (ii) That new construction in the open courtyard has obstructed the passage of the courtyard from the stairs and has also obstructed the air and light to the premises. (iii) That the construction raised in the courtyard is a permanent structure, which has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. This construction was raised without consent of the landlord. 4. Appellate Authority, Ambala affirmed observations of learned Rent Controller while dismissing the appeal filed by revision-petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has argued that flush toilet is a facility and not an impairment. By constructing the flush toilet, revision-petitioner has enhanced the value and utility of the demised premises and the conclusion drawn by learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority that it has diminished the value and utility of the building is not correct or based on evidence on record. 6. On giving a careful thought to submissions of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and on perusal of lower Court record, I find that a toilet was already existing in the demised premises. In case a flush toilet was required to be provided, the toilet already in existence could be converted in the flush toilet with permission of landlord or by taking permission from learned Rent Controller. The petitioner has raised the structure in the courtyard of the premises which has not only reduced the area of the courtyard and spoiled entire plan of the building but has also obstructed the approach to courtyard from the stairs by blocking the passage. The petitioner has raised the structure in the courtyard of the premises which has not only reduced the area of the courtyard and spoiled entire plan of the building but has also obstructed the approach to courtyard from the stairs by blocking the passage. I agree with learned counsel for revision-petitioner that flush toilet is a facility but this argument does not help the revision-petitioner in any manner as revision-petitioner has constructed the flush toilet without permission of the landlord and that too at a place which was not earmarked for the toilet. She had no right to reduce the area of compound and also to block the approach to the courtyard from the stairs while raising this construction. It is immaterial whether toilet constructed by her has a roof or does not have a roof, but it is a permanent structure for all intents and purposes. 7. On perusal of lower Court record and judgments passed by learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, I find no legal or factual infirmity therein calling for any interference in this revision, which has no merit and the same is dismissed.