JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The landlord/petitioner herein, becoming aggrieved, from, the concurrently recorded verdicts, of, dismissal of his eviction petition, respectively pronounced against him, initially by the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, the latter affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority concerned, has, thereagainst constituted, the, extant civil revision petition before this Court, wherethrough, he strives for begetting reversal, of, the afore concurrent verdicts, as, recorded against him. 2. The lease deed executed, inter se, the tenant, and, the landlord hence exists at page 66 of the records, of, the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, thereunder, the, extant demised premises became leased to the tenant, by the landlord. The learned counsel appearing, for the contesting litigants, do not contest, the, factum, of, the afore lease deed, becoming validly drawn, inter se, the landlord, and, the tenant. The learned counsel appearing, for, the landlord, anchors his submission, upon, clause 10 thereof, and, clause whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "10. The lessee shall keep the premises in a clean and hygiene conditions and shall not do or cause to be done by any official or employee any act which may be nuisance to others." (i) hence on anvil of the afore clause, the, learned counsel appearing for the landlord, submits, that the innate nuance thereof, as, arises from the user therein, of, the "words" "of the official or the employees", being, vis-a-vis, the, user demised premises, rather becoming lawful, (ii) only upon, the demised premises becoming used hence, for occupations thereof, by the officials, and, the employees, of, the lessee, (iii) and, that no part of the demised premises, as, leased, to the tenant, becoming useable, for, a purpose, other than, its becoming occupied, by the officials or employees of the lessee, hence, for, therethroughs, the, ministerial jobs, of the lessee, becoming operationalised therefrom. He contends that when there exists uncontroverted evidence on record, in, display, vis-a-vis, the balcony, as, adjunct to the rooms, hence, used as a godown by the lessee, (iv) thereupon, the afore manner of user, of, the balcony adjunct to the leased rooms, constituted change, of, user of the demised premises, by the lessee, and, hence, thereupon, the concurrent verdicts of dismissal, of, the eviction petition rather warranting interference, from, this Court. 3. 3. However, a closest, and, circumspect reading of the pleadings existing on record, and, also a studied perusal, of, the adduced evidence, (i) make bespeakings, vis-a-vis, the landlord, rather in the eviction petition, rearing pleadings, only vis-a-vis, change of user, of, balcony hence adjunct to the leased rooms, (ii) and, his obviously not vis-a-vis, rooms leased to the lessee, rearing any pleadings, vis-a-vis, theirs also likewise becoming impermissibly used rather, for, stacking the salvage nor obviously the landlord pleads nor proves, visa-vis, the rooms leased to the lessee, hence, begetting the apt change of user, inasmuch, as, theirs contrary, to the afore clause rather enjoining the lessee, to use them, for housing its staff therein, it becoming impermissibly used, for, a contradistinct therewith rather afore purpose. 4. Even though, the afore lack of pleadings would not bar, this Court to interfere, with, the concurrent verdicts of dismissal, pronounced, upon, the eviction petition of the landlord, as the entire demised premises, are, insegregable from each other, and, the proven change of user of any portion, of, the insegregable demised premises, from there covenanted user, may bring, the fate, of, the, eviction petition, rather becoming pronounced hence to be decreeable. However, the demised premises, were leased, to the respondents herein, in, the year 1979, and, when PW-1 deposes, vis-a-vis, salvage becoming stacked, in the afore portion, of the demised premises, since the year 1984, and, also testifies, vis-a-vis, renewed fresh leases, inter se, the landlord, and, the tenant, qua the demised premises, becoming also executed, in, the year 1985, and, in 1990, (a) thereupon, when even during the currency of the renewed lease deed executed inter se the landlord, and, tenant, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, rather the balcony, as, adjunct to the rooms leased to the tenant, became evidently used as a godown, for stacking, the, salvage(s) therein, (b) and, with PW-1 also deposing, vis-a-vis, since 1979, the afore balcony becoming used, for, the afore impermissibly covenanted purposes, yet with thereafter also the apt fresh renewed lease deeds also becoming executed, inter se, the contesting litigants, (c) necessarily hence, sparks, an inference, vis-a-vis, the landlord acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the afore user of the balcony adjunct, to the leased rooms, hence, by the tenant, (d) and, also begets, a, concomitant conclusion, vis-a-vis, the landlord waiving , and, abandoning, the, afore purported change, of, user of balcony, adjunct to the rooms leased, to the lessee, hence, as, a, corollary, rather not constituting any, befitting ground, for, his seeking, the, eviction, of, the tenant therefrom. Further accentuated momentum, to, the, afore inference, of, estoppel working against, the, landlord, stands, galvanized, from, the, factum, that, with the landlord instituting, much belatedly, since, the execution of the renewed lease deed drawn inter se him, and, the tenant, rather in the year 2000, an eviction petition, on the ground, qua the balcony adjunct, to the rooms also leased to the tenant, becoming impermissibly, used for, stacking, the, salvage, and, hence, thereupons, begetting, the, happening(s), of, purpoted impermissible change, of, users thereof, from its covenanted permissible user, at the instance of the tenant, nor thereupon, he becomes enabled, to, on the afore pleaded ground, hence, seek an order, of, eviction, becoming pronounced, against, the tenant. 5. Furthermore, the landlord received disaffirmative findings, upon, the, issue appertaining, to, the value, of, a part of the demised premises becoming materially impaired, inasmuch as, by the staff of the tenant, by theirs using kerosene oil stove, user whereof, rather causing damage, to the roof, of the demised premises. 5. Furthermore, the landlord received disaffirmative findings, upon, the, issue appertaining, to, the value, of, a part of the demised premises becoming materially impaired, inasmuch as, by the staff of the tenant, by theirs using kerosene oil stove, user whereof, rather causing damage, to the roof, of the demised premises. However, his challenge to the findings returned, upon, the issue appertaining therewith, is, extremely infirm, (i) as the landlord would succeed, only, upon, his adducing evidence personificatory, vis-a-vis, any purported damage to the tenanted premises rather also evidently materially, and, substantially, hence, impairing, the value of the building, in part whereof, the, demised premises are located. Resultantly mere minimal purported damages, as, are encumbered, upon, the demised premises, may not endow any leverage in the landlord, to, hence strive, for, the tenant becoming evicted, from, the demised premises. For determining, whether there exists cogent evidence on record, vis-avis, the purported misuse, of the demised premises, by the tenant, and, hence also thereupons substantial, and, material impairings, vis-a-vis, the value, and, utility, of, the demised premises, becoming encumbered, thereons, (a) an allusion to the deposition of PW-1, is, imperative, (b) wherein, he has deposed, vis-a-vis, his noticing scratches occurring on the marble flooring, besides his noticing, vis-a-vis, hence cracks developing, in, the balcony. Moreover, he also testifies qua the articles or fittings of the toilet also becoming damaged, by the tenant, as also, the roof of the demised premises, having black spots, owing to the use, of,kerosene stove, by the staff, of, the tenant. However, his deposition remained uncorroborated by PW-3, who is an expert, and, who after visiting the demised premises, prepared his report, and, tendered, it, into evidence, and, whereon exhibit Mark, Ex.PW3/A became embossed, inasmuch, as, his omitting, to, make, any, articulation therein, hence, supporting the afore testification rendered by PW-1, and, appertaining to his noticing cracks, in, the balcony adjunct, to the rooms, leased to the tenant. Furthermore, he also, does not, in his report, borne in Ex.PW3/A, make articulations hence supporting, the, testification rendered by PW-1, vis-a-vis, scratches occurring, on, the marble flooring rather contrary thereto, he merely deposes, vis-a-vis, the marble flooring, of, the demised premises becoming worn out, and, damaged. Furthermore, he also, does not, in his report, borne in Ex.PW3/A, make articulations hence supporting, the, testification rendered by PW-1, vis-a-vis, scratches occurring, on, the marble flooring rather contrary thereto, he merely deposes, vis-a-vis, the marble flooring, of, the demised premises becoming worn out, and, damaged. Even if, assuming all the afore contradictions, inter se, the testifications of PW-1, and, PW-3 appertaining, to, the requisite ground, of, eviction, as, pleaded in the eviction petition, rather are minimal, and, are also overlookable, yet, the preponderant, and, paramount statutory ingredients qua therewith hence requiring apt satiation, are, solitarily comprised, in hence, the, value, and, utility of the apposite building becoming materially, and, substantially, hence, impaired rather therefrom. However, the apt consonant therewith evidence, is, neither testified by PW-1, and, nor is borne in Ex.PW3/A, thereupon, any minimal damage visited, upon, the demised premises, cannot be concluded, to be materially or substantially, affecting the value, and, utility, of, the building. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the extant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the concurrently recorded verdicts, as, impugned before this Court are affirmed, and, maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.