G. ARUNACHALAM Vs. THONDARPERIENAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the tenants against the order of the Madras High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 358 of 1985 allowing the landlords' petition and reversing the finding of the first appellate Court. The High Court held that the ground of eviction under S. 10(2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (the "Act') was attracted by the facts of the case and the tenants were liable to be evicted. The first appellate Court had, however, found that there was no evidence to show that the tenants had "committed or caused to be committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building" so as to attract the ground mentioned in S. 10(2)(iii). This finding was rendered on the basis of a report submitted by an Assistant Engineer of the P.W.D., who was appointed by the trial Court as a Commissioner to submit a report about the alterations alleged to have been made by the tenants in the building. The Commissioner stated:-

(2.) However, by the impugned judgment the High Court reversed the finding of the first appellate Court. In our view, the High Court ought not to have reversed the finding rendered by the first appellate Court which was based on the facts found by the Engineer-Commissioner. The Commissioner as an expert had submitted a detailed report, material portions of which we have extracted above. That report shows that the alterations effected by the tenants did not come within the ambit of S. 10(2)(iii), which is the only provision on the basis of which the landlords sought eviction of the tenants. The decisions relied. on by the High Court do not support the conclusion to which it came by reason of the facts found by the first appellate Court and fully supported by the report of the Commissioner.

(3.) Having heard counsel on both sides and considered the judgments of the Courts below, and having considered the observations of the Commissioner, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified, in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 25 of the Act, in interfering with the judgment of the first appellate court.