T R SRINIVASA CHETTY Vs. G NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing door No. 1/40, Godown Street, George Town, Madras against whom an order of eviction was passed by the third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in H.R.A. No. 179 of 1979, on the ground of subletting. THE landlord, the first respondent herein, initially filed H.R.C. No. 2519 of 1976, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras against the civil revision petitioner herein and the second respondent herein for eviction under section 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of the abovesaid premises let out to the civil revision petitioner for carrying on tobacco business only. THE case of the landlord is that in the middle of the month of May, 1976, without the knowledge or consent of the landlord the tenant, the civil revision petitioner carried out extensive structural alterations to the portion in his occupation by demolishing certain walls and removing doors and windows and the said act committed by the tenant amounted to an act of waste resulting in damage to the building and also endangering the safety of the building and impairing the material utility and value of the building. THE landlord also alleged that the civil revision petitioner had sublet the portion let out to him to the second respondent herein without the knowledge and consent of the landlord, the first respondent herein. THE landlord sought the eviction of the civil revision petitioner on both the abovesaid grounds.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller after going through the evidence in this case found that there is no proof to show that the tenant had caused damage by way of alterations and other acts of waste to the petition-mentioned premises as alleged by the landlord. On the second ground of sub-letting the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant had sub-let the premises to the second respondent herein and ordered eviction of the civil revision petitioner under section 10 (2) (a) (a) of the Act. As against the orders of the learned Rent Controller the tenant filed an appeal to the Third Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras in H.R.A. No. 179 of 1979. THE appellate authority also concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. As against the order of dismissal by the appellate authority this civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant.

(3.) IN order to arrive at a conclusion whether the transaction under Exhibit R-3 will amount to a lease or licence the relevant terms of Exhibit R-3 will have to be referred to. The civil revision petitioner, who is the tenant, is referred to as the party of the first part and the second respondent herein is referred to as the party of the second part in the under-mentioned clauses of Exhibit R-3. The agreement Exhibit R-3 contains 17 clauses which are reproduced below: -