H SYED YUSUFF ALI Vs. R SAVARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. THE respondent/ landlord filed an application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.1413 of 2009 on the file of the 15th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai on the ground of act of waste, causing nuisance and for owner's occupation.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller rejected the case of act of waste and ordered eviction on the ground of causing nuisance and owner's occupation and the same was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.4 of 2011 on the file of 8th Court of Small Causes, Chennai and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(3.) THE landlord was examined as PW1 and he gave evidence to the effect that the tenant was washing his clothes in the common area, parking his vehicles only in the common area preventing the other tenants from using the parking area, removing the hand pump of the Corporation water connection and prevented others from taking water, damaged the Electric Motor and he was also taking shave in the common area to the annoyance of other tenants. While cross-examining PW1, no suggestion was put to PW1 denying those acts as stated by PW1 in the Chief-examination. Further, while examining as RW1 the revision petitioner/ tenant also admitted that he was washing his clothes in the common area and gave an explanation that he was doing so with the permission of the landlord which was denied by the landlord and which was also not spoken to by the revision petitioner in his counter and he has also admitted the parking his vehicles in the parking slot available for all the tenants and he also admitted that occasionally he used to shave in the common area. THErefore, when the revision petitioner himself admitted having committed all the acts of nuisance as spoken to by the landlord, there is no need for the landlord to prove the same by examining other tenants. Further, one cannot expect the other tenants to come forward to give evidence against the co-tenants in case of such nuisance as they would apprehend more problems for their peaceful living. THErefore, having regard to the fact that the landlord/ respondent has proved the acts of nuisance by producing the photographs and the same were also accepted by the revision petitioner, both the Courts below have rightly held that the landlord has proved the acts of nuisance committed by the tenant and ordered eviction. As a matter of fact, the learned Rent Controller extracted the relevant pages from the evidence of RW1 to arrive at the conclusion that the tenant has committed the nuisances. THErefore, the Judgement relied upon by the revision petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the case.