VISHVESH TEXTILES Vs. M K CHANDRAKANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. The revision is filed against the eviction ordered on the grounds that the tenant used the petition non-residential premises for the purpose other than for which it was leased and for causing damages to the said premises, by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) and 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is stated in the petition that the revision petitioner is the tenant under the respondent/landlord in 34, Evening Bazaar, Madras-600003 (first floor) for the past 25 years and the building was let out for the purpose of keeping an office only and the revision petitioner used to keep samples of his articles in the premises. When the landlord visited the premises on 6.10.1994, he found that the petition premises was locked and the toilet attached to the petition premises of the first floor was heavily damaged and required repairs. The toilet found open and it was in bad order and nasty condition and stingy odour ravaged the whole floor, which amounts the acts of waste and nuisance to the other occupiers of the building and the tenant has started business of textiles and retails at door No.196, Rasappa Chetty Street, Madras-600003 and he is keeping the stock in trade in the petition premises. The petition premises was let out only for keeping an office and not for godown. By such user will impair and cause damages to the petition premises and materially the value and utility of the building will be lost due to the dumping of the goods in the petition premises. The tenant also caused damages to the bathroom attached toilet and as such, he committed acts of waste. To the lawyer notice dated 8.10.1994, the revision petitioner/tenant replied on 20.10.1994 to which a rejoinder was sent on 7.11.1994.

(3.) The petition was opposed in the counter filed by the tenant that the bathroom and toilet was not in exclusive possession and control of the revision petitioner/tenant and this is the only bathroom and toilet to all the tenants in the ground floor and the first floor. The revision petitioner/tenant has not damaged the bathroom and the toilet. It is denied that the revision petitioner/tenant has committed the acts of waste or that he is a source of nuisance to the other occupiers of the building. It is further denied that the petition premises was let out for keeping an office and that the tenant was keeping only samples in the premises. He has not converted the petition premises to a godown. The petition premises was taken on lease for the purpose of textile and other business inclusive of sales, purchase, keeping of stock and all other activities which are necessary for running the business. The tenant was stocking the materials in the petition premises right from the commencement of the tenancy.