VENUGOPAL Vs. P T RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2001 and made in R.C.A.No.544 of 1997 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, reversing the finding dated 24.2.1997 of the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, with regard to act of waste and demolition and reconstruction, but sustaining the order of the said Court with regard to wilful default in R.C.O.P.No.1508 of 1998.

(2.) THE facts that are necessary for disposal of this civil revision petition are as follows: THE respondents herein are the landlords of the premises described in the rent control petition and the revision petitioner, who is the respondent before the Rent Control Court, is the tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.170. THE revision petitioner became a tenant of the said premises under the previous owner Lakshmi Ammal and her children. THE respondents herein have purchased the premises in question on 7.5.1987 from their vendors for proper and valid consideration and the fact of purchase of the said premises was also informed to the revision petitioner. A notice was sent on 15.6.1987 and a reply containing untenable allegations was sent by the revision petitioner. THE rent was not paid from May, 1987 and therefore, a notice dated 16.3.1988 was again sent by the respondents herein to the revision petitioner. A reply was sent on 23.3.1998 along with a cheque for Rs.630 towards arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.70 per month. THE above said cheque was returned by the respondents herein. THE revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. THE revision petitioner has changed the tiled roof of a portion of the premises under his occupation by zinc sheet unlawfully, thereby committing act of waste. THE building in which the revision petitioner is in occupation of a portion, is a old and dilapidated building and therefore, the premises is required for demolition and reconstruction. THE respondents herein undertake to commence demolition of the building and complete the same as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ( hereinafter referred to as "THE Act"). THE respondents have sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction and they have also taken steps for obtaining an approved plan for the new construction at the demised premises. It is on these grounds, the respondents herein as landlords, have come forward with this petition for eviction.

(3.) IN the pleadings in the petition filed for eviction, the respondents herein as petitioners have stated that the roof was changed from tiles to zinc sheets illegally and high-handedly; but, there is no averment in the pleadings that such change of roof has materially impaired the value or utility of the building. IN the evidence on the side of the respondents herein also, there is no acceptable evidence as to how such change of roof has materially impaired the value or utility of the building.