SHA JETMULL GENMULL Vs. GOCOOLDASS JAMUNADASS AND CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER GOVINDASS PURUSHOTHAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord applied for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from premises No. 13, Kasi Chetty Street, Madras-I, Under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that he had committed acts of waste which have impaired the value and utility of the building. It was the respondent's case that the petitioner has unauthorisedly and without the respondent's knowledge and consent demolished a portion of the roof in the first floor, removed the Burmah teak-wood rafters, planks, doors and windows, thus considerably damaging the old building, that a new staircase has been put up leading from the first floor to the second floor and that he had also loaded the beams of the ground floor by putting up a balcony in the first floor without the knowledge and consent of the respondent. By a notice, Exhibit P-3, dated 7th November, 1966 the respondent terminated the tenancy of the petitioner.

(2.) The petition for eviction was resisted by the petitioner on the following grounds: The respondent which is a firm of partnership was not the owner of the premises, that one Govind Dass is the owner of the same, and that the petition for eviction filed by the firm without the written consent of the said Govind Dass, the owner of the premises was not maintainable in law. The petitioner denied that he committed any act of waste which was likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. He also denied that any portion of the roof was removed or the Burmah-teakwood rafters or planks or doors or windows were ever removed. Though he admitted the putting up of a balcony, he denied that the erection of a balcony had caused any additional load on the beams in the ground floor of the premises. He further denied that the staircase which he had put up leading from the first floor to the second floor had damaged the building. The petitioner also pleaded that the staircase from the first floor to the second floor and the balcony is in the first floor had been erected long earlier with the consent of the respondent. He also attributed mala fide motive on the part of the respondent to evict him somehow. He referred to certain earlier eviction petitions filed by the respondent against him unsuccessfully to show that the respondent is seeking his eviction mala fide.

(3.) The Rent Controller considered the following points: