Judgment:
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The present revision has been filed by the landlord against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby it has been held that there was no material impairment to the value and utility of the shop in question.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent-tenant has made three holes on the western side of the wall in dispute. It has also been contended that the entire floor of the shop has also been damaged and as such repairs would have to be carried out by the landlord.
3. After perusing the judgments of both the Courts below, it is clear that the shop in question was let out to the respondent-tenant for Drilling business. The tenant had installed his drilling machines in the shop. It is common knowledge that the drilling machines vibrate a lot when these are in operation and this could result in slight damage to the floor. However, the landlord knew very well that by giving the premises in dispute for the purpose of setting up of a drilling machines to the respondent there would definitely be some impairment to the floor of the shop.
4. In this view of the matter, I find that the damage to the floor is quite natural and in the ordinary course of the business of the respondent. The same is not of such which would warrant his ejectment.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.