GURUMOORTHY GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. LAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a construction effected by a tenant in the land appurtenant to the building would also fall within the mischief of S.11(4)(ii) if the landlord establishes that such a construction has the effect of reducing the value and utility of the tenanted premises is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) Counsel for the tenant Sri. P.A. Harish contended that even assuming that the construction had been effected by the tenant in the ground appurtenant to the building, since tenant has not used the tenanted building in such a manner as to destroy its value and utility materially and permanently, such an action of the tenant would not fall within the mischief of S.11(4)(ii) of the Act,

(3.) Counsel appearing for the landlord Sri. K.T. Sankaran on the other hand contended that even if the construction is effected by the tenant in the ground appurtenant to the building and not to the building as such, the conduct of the tenant would come within the mischief of S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. Consequently landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on that ground.