S AZEEM Vs. M NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who succeeded before the Rent Controller, but lost before the appellate authority, is the petitioner herein. THE landlord sought eviction on two grounds: (1) user of the building for a purpose different from the one for which it was leased, and (2) requirement for demolition and reconstruction. THE case of the landlord was that the building was leased out for non-residential purpose viz. , furniture business. But, the tenant, has used it for residential purpose without his consent. It was also the case of the landlord that the building required demolition and he wanted to demolish the same and reconstruct. THE tenant contested the proceeding and contended that the subject-matter of the lease was only land and the building was constructed by him. It was also his case that the original purpose of the lease was to use the same for residential as well as non-residential purposes. He also denied the bona fides of the landlord in requiring the building for demolition and reconstruction.

(2.) THE Rent Controller found in favour of the tenant on all the issues and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Authority held against the landlord on the question of demolition and reconstruction, but found in favour of the landlord on the other issues and granted eviction. It is the said order which is now questioned before me.

(3.) IT has been held in Ponnuswamy Pillai v. Palaniappa chettiar, 79 L. W. (S. N.) 15, that the use was not of permissible type if the use of residence is not an ancillary to the business and, therefore, the tenant lost protection. In this case also, the use of the building for residential purpose can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be ancillary to the furniture business. IT has also been held that acquiescence or absence of protest on the part of the landlord will not enable the tenant to escape the consequences of the section which insists upon a written consent. Vide: Abdul Kader v. G. H. Rao, (1964)2m. L. J. 288. In the circumstances, the finding of the Appellate Authority is unassailable and the tenant is liable to be evicted.