SRINIVASA RAO Vs. KRISHNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P. No. 12 of 1997, on the file of Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Tenkasi, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) LANDLADY claimed eviction on the ground that the building is made use of by the tenant for a purpose other than the one for which it was let out and, therefore, according to her, tenant has committed acts of waste in the property, and has also caused nuisance. She also claimed eviction on the ground that the building is required for additional accommodation of her son.

(3.) IN the counter statement filed by the tenant, he admitted the rental arrangement. According to him, even though there is a rental arrangement as per Ex. P-1 dated 20.5.1993, tenancy began even before that date. According to him, the schedule premises was taken on rent for running a coffee hotel, on 1.2.1993, and the landlady has also received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as advance and has executed a receipt on 19.1.1993. Even before Ex.P-1, the tenant has been running a sweet stall, and not coffee stall. The contention of the landlady that the building was taken on rent only for the purpose of running a sweet stall is denied. According to the tenant, he is not carrying on any business, which has caused damage to the building. The requirement for additional accommodation is also denied. According to him, the smoke that emanates from the stove goes outside the building, and by running a tea stall, there is no nuisance, nor has he committed any acts of waste in the building. There is also no change of user as alleged by the petitioner. He prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.