SHA SURAGMAL BHALECHAND Vs. PUNAMCHAND R. SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner before me. This arises under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960). The respondent -landlord filed an application under Sec. 10 of Act XVIII of 1960 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner committed such acts of waste which are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. There were several acts of waste complained of in the petition filed before the Rent Controller. The parties, however, have restricted their arguments before me by referring to one incident and act of the tenant, namely, removal of the wooden partition in the first floor and replacing it by pucca walls with no support for the walls on the ground floor. P.W. 3, an Engineer, who was examined, deposed that he found in the first floor one long wall and three cross -walls and that there is no support in the ground floor for these walls and that the new walls throw additional load to the building which is over 70 or 80 years old. Besides, the landlord gave evidence in support thereof. The petitioner did not examine any expert to countermand the evidence let in by the landlord. Both the Courts below found that the petitioner's acts do constitute acts of waste which would materially impair the value and utility of the building.

(2.) Mr. R. Vaidyanathan appearing for the petitioner, brought to my notice two decisions of our High Court, in Govindaswami Naidu v/s. Pushpalammal : AIR1952Mad181 , and Patel Md. Siddique v/s. H.H. Prince of Arcot Endowment : (1964)1MLJ97 . In the former case, Rajamannar, C.J., and Somasundaram, J., held, dealing with the relevant provision in the earlier Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1946:

(3.) In the latter case, Venkatadri, J., observed: