JUDGMENT : Lisa Gill, J. This petition has been filed by the landlord challenging judgment dated 11.04.2001 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana as well as judgment dated 01.03.2004 passed by the learned Appellate authority, Ludhiana. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the petitioner (through his legal representatives) seeking eviction of the respondent - tenant on the ground of arrears of rent as well as material impairment of the value and utility of the plot in question. It was pleaded that Harbhajan Singh was the owner of the plot measuring 230 square yards as described in the petition. It was given to the respondent on licence/rent for running a business of selling fodder on the payment of Rs. 120/- per month. Rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 150/- per month. Licence deed to this effect was executed on 12.05.1976 (Ex. AW2/A). It was specifically mentioned in the said deed that the vacant plot shall be used exclusively for the purpose of selling fodder. Respondent undertook not to raise any construction thereon without written consent of the landlord. However, the respondent it was pleaded raised construction thereon and installed a weigh bridge, thus, impairing the value and utility of the plot. A registered legal notice dated 21.01.1989 was sent to him. Reply dated 08.02.1989 was submitted by the respondent. The respondent was also stated to be in the arrears of rent. Hence, the petition. 3. Petition was resisted by the respondent - tenant while refuting the averments in the petition. It was asserted that the construction over the plot was raised with oral consent of the petitioner who had pleaded paucity of funds with him. It was agreed that the room constructed thereon would vest with the landlord. It was denied that value and utility was impaired in any manner. In fact, the value and utility of the plot was enhanced by the said construction. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for. Replication was filed. Following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the tender is not legal and is incomplete? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised plot, raising construction? OPP 3. Relief. Evidence was led by both the parties to prove their case. 4. Replication was filed. Following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the tender is not legal and is incomplete? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised plot, raising construction? OPP 3. Relief. Evidence was led by both the parties to prove their case. 4. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the landlord while concluding that the arrears of rent were tendered, therefore, the said ground no longer existed. Moreover, value and utility of the plot was not impaired by the construction raised on the said plot. The weigh bridge, it was observed, was required for the purpose of selling fodder and it was a necessary corollary for the purpose for which the plot was rented out. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned appellate Authority vide judgment dated 01.03.2014. Aggrieved there from, this petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that as per licence/rent deed dated 12.05.1976, it is specifically mentioned that the tenant shall not raise any construction over the property without written permission of the owner. Plot measuring 230 square yards, it is submitted, is a residential plot. Raising of said construction for this purpose is otherwise not permissible. Relationship of landlord and tenant is duly accepted in document dated 12.05.1976. There is, thus, a clear misreading of evidence leading to a perverse finding. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the learned courts below have rendered well reasoned and logical findings based on proper appreciation of evidence, therefore, no inference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for. Value and utility of the plot in question has in fact been enhanced by raising this construction. The petitioner is very well aware of the construction being raised on the property. He did not raise any objection till the issuance of the legal notice. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. This Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not interfere in concurrent findings of fact until and unless it is found to be perverse, arrived at without consideration of material evidence or complete misreading of evidence. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. This Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not interfere in concurrent findings of fact until and unless it is found to be perverse, arrived at without consideration of material evidence or complete misreading of evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 while examining the scope of revisional jurisdiction reiterated that power is indeed a limited one, pure findings of fact until and unless perverse and opposed to the evidence on record should not be interfered with. It is specifically observed that: "The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal." 9. In the present case, relationship of the landlord and tenant is not dispute and no arguments have been raised by either party on this aspect. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal." 9. In the present case, relationship of the landlord and tenant is not dispute and no arguments have been raised by either party on this aspect. It is further not in dispute that written document i.e. 'licence deed dated 15.02.1976' was executed between the petitioner and the respondent - landlord. I have perused the said licence deed (Ex.RW2/A). It is specifically mentioned therein that a plot measuring 230 square yards, as described therein, owned by the petitioner was being given on a licence fee of Rs. 120 per month w.e.f. 15.05.1976 for weighing of fodder with a 'kanda'. It is further stated that earth would not be excavated from the plot by the tenant neither would he raise any construction thereon without written permission of the owner. The plot would be returned in the condition in which it was taken. It is further specifically mentioned in this document that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the plot in question was given on rent to the respondent for the purpose of weighment of fodder with the help of a Kanda. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent that the plot is otherwise a plot in a residential area. As per the written statement filed by the respondent, it is mentioned in para 2 thereof that he was inducted as a tenant in a 'non-residential building' over the property in question. In para 4(b) of the written statement, it is stated that the room in question was constructed by the plaintiff (petitioner) himself. However, in his evidence, respondent RW5 categorically deposed that a room was constructed on the plot by him before the installation of the weigh bridge. Room in question is stated to have been constructed with the oral consent of Harbhajan Singh and admittedly no consent in writing was obtained. Relevant part of the cross examination of RW5 reads as under:" I raised the construction in this property at the time when I installed the weigh bridge. The room was constructed with the oral consent of Harbhajan Singh although no consent in writing was obtained. Arjan Singh w/o Ram Chand was present when Harbhajan Singh so consented. Relevant part of the cross examination of RW5 reads as under:" I raised the construction in this property at the time when I installed the weigh bridge. The room was constructed with the oral consent of Harbhajan Singh although no consent in writing was obtained. Arjan Singh w/o Ram Chand was present when Harbhajan Singh so consented. He resides in the same area. I do not recollect the exact date. The land with me was vacant when I took its possession." 10. Photographs of the premises are available on record as Exs. R24 to R29 which reveal the existence of the construction thereon with hoardings/board, 'Janta Lorry Weigh Bridge' and 'Janta Dharam Kanta' displayed thereon. A deep pit has been dug for the weigh bridge and a room has been constructed. Plea taken by the respondent in his reply dated 08.02.1989 (Ex.PX) to legal notice dated 21.01.1989 (Ex.AW3/1), is that original writing alleged to be a licence deed is not relevant as it was no longer subsisting. Rent was increased to Rs. 150/- per month and the land in question is not vacant land. The room thereon already stood constructed. At this point, it is pertinent to note that as per document dated 12.05.1976 the plot in question, clearly a vacant plot, was let out to the respondent for the purpose of weighing fodder (pathe) with a Kanda. It can by no means be stretched to mean that the landlord permitted the respondent to run a fullfledged business of weighment of the heavy weight vehicles (trucks and lorries), the photographs attached with the report by the expert engaged by the respondent himself clearly reflect that the premises are being used for Lorry Weigh Bridge (Dharam Kanta) whereby heavy vehicles would necessarily frequent the place. There is gross misreading of evidence by both the learned courts below. Learned courts below have clearly erred in relying upon the permissions granted to the respondent by the Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, Weight and Measures Department and Punjab State Electricity Board to install the weigh bridge. It is further incorrectly concluded that there is no impairment of the value and utility of the premises in question. Impairment of value and utility of the building is to be perceived from the point of view of the landlord and not of the tenant. It is further incorrectly concluded that there is no impairment of the value and utility of the premises in question. Impairment of value and utility of the building is to be perceived from the point of view of the landlord and not of the tenant. Reference in this regard can gainfully made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vipin Kumar vs. Roshan Lal Anand and others 1993 (1) Rent Control Reporter 675. Moreover, respondent while deposing as RW5 has categorically admitted that no written permission was sought by him from the landlord before raising construction on the plot. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the value and utility of the building has in fact been improved or enhanced. To accept this argument on behalf of the respondent that the value of the building in question has been enhanced due to commercial use of property is indeed unjustified and unacceptable. It is wrongly held by the learned courts below that installation of the weigh bridge and construction on the plot was a necessary corollary for the purpose for which the plot was given on rent i.e. for weighment of fodder. Findings rendered by the courts below in this respect are clearly perverse based on a total misreading of the evidence on record, leading to manifest miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the finding on issue No. 2 by both the learned courts below is set aside. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, both judgment dated 11.04.2001 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana as well as judgment dated 01.03.2004 passed by the learned Appellate authority, Ludhiana are set aside. Consequently, petition filed by the petitioner - landlord is allowed. The respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession of the property in question within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order.