(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment dt.4-2-1984 in CMA.NO. 43 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority (Subordinate- fudge) Karur, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The revision petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing Door No. 12-K situate in Pugalur Road, Inam Karur Sub Registrar District and Karur Village, West Karur Registration District. The respondent herein instituted proceedings, viz., R.C.O.P.No. 23 of 1981 on the file of the Rent controller (Principal District Munsif) Karur, under Section 10(2) (ii) (b) of the Act for eviction on the ground that the Petitioner had taken the demised premises on lease on a monthly rental of Rs. 40 to run the handloom business known as "Revathi Textiles". Subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs. 120 p.m. with effect from 18-4-1981. The Petitioner later used the demised premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out, i.e., the respondent-landlady originally leased out the demised premises to run the handloom business, but without the consent and knowledge of the respondent, the Petitioner had located "Saminathapuram Arrack shop" in the property and consequently fought for eviction.
(3.) The Petitioner herein resisted the said application contending inter alia that it was not correct to state that the Petitioner herein had taken the demised premises on lease to run the handloom business known as "Revathi Textiles" and that the Petitioner has taken the demised premises on lease only as non-residential building to run any business as desired by him. The Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner did not carry on any business right from the inception of lease dated, 17-10-1969. At the time when the Petitioner had taken the demised premises on lease he did not decide the business which he was then intent to carry on. The Petitioner further contended that he was legally entitled to run any business of his choice and that the running of the arrack shop in the demised premises did not violate any contract or provision of lease, since there was no provision as alleged.