BAFKHY & SONS Vs. M.R. NARAYANASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 31 -3 -1999 in R.C.A.No.30 of 1996 confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 2 9 -4 -1996, made in R.C.O.P.No.263 of 1991.

(2.) The respondent herein preferred R.C.O.P.No.263 of 1991 for eviction on the grounds of wilful default and act of waste. While the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds, the Appellate Authority confirmed the eviction only on the ground of act of waste. The act of waste complained of by the respondent was that the petition premises was taken on lease by the petitioner as a godown for the hotel run by it in the adjacent property in the name and style " Cafe Garden", that immediately prior to the filing of the petition for eviction, the revision petitioner, while renovating the hotel portion in the course of reconstruction, illegally and clandestinely demolished the eastern and southern wall of the petition premises in No.68, Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil street, Madras -1, and made openings for access to the petitioner's property bearing D.Nos. 45 and 46, Mannadi Street, without the consent of the respondent or his brother and thereby committed an act of waste impairing the material value of the building apart from prejudicially affecting the property rights of the respondent in the petition premises by connecting the same with the adjacent property not owned by the respondent and thereby making itself liable for eviction.

(3.) The said allegation was resisted by the petitioner by contending that the petition premises, which was a room in the ground floor portion, was taken on lease from the original owners, namely, the predecessor in title of the respondent for using it as a kitchen to the hotel business which was being run for a long time, that two entrances in the eastern and southern wall of the petition premises were in existence for a very long time, that is, even prior to the respondent becoming the owner of the petition premises, that nothing was done without the consent of the landlord, namely, the respondent's brother, that therefore the question of demolition of the eastern or southern side walls did not arise and therefore the allegation of act of waste alleged against the petitioner is not proved. It was therefore contended that there was no question of impairing the value of the building, while the on the other hand, it had only enhanced the value of the room and the utility of it.