K SANTHA Vs. SUBBIAH NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the landlawe s. THEy are the owners of the building which is the subject matter of these eviction proceedings. THEy filed a petition under Sec.(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises on the ground that he had committed acts of waste on the building. THE petitioners- case was that one Chandravadanammal the mother of the petitioners, during her lifetime, some time in 1963 leased the premises to the respondent. According to the petitioners, originally the leased premises consisted of a house and a car shed on the western side and later, the shed on the eastern side also was leased to him. THE main ground on which eviction is prayed for was that the house portion of the premises was leased for residential purposes and only the shed portions were given for non-residential purposes. However, without the consent of the landladies the respondent has converted that house also for non-residential purposes. It was also the complaint that he had also committed acts of waste causing damage to the building affecting the value and utility of the building. It is further asserted that the tenant had altered the entrance of the room, constructed several ovens in the ground floor and also in the first floor for the purpose of preparing edibles and that due to the smoke, heat and vibration of the motor used for the purpose of the business there was damage by smoke and heat and cracks in terrace.

(2.) THE respondent-tenant filed a counter contending that even at the time when the building was leased in 1963 it was for the specific purpose of confectionery, that subsequently with the consent of the power-of-attorney he had put up four ovens in the ground floor and also constructed over the terrace an asbestos roofing and installed four other ovens. All these acording to the tenant, was done in the year 1965 with oral consent of the then power-of-attorney of the petitioners. His further case was that by reason of the user of the premises as a confectionery or putting up ovens in the ground floor and the upstairs portion no damage has been caused to the building and that whatever cracks and other things may be there, they may be due to the old age of the premises itself and not by reason of the user of the premises as a confectionery.

(3.) ON appeal, the appellate authority, in the view that the spot inspection was not in accordance with law, on the request of the parties, also made a spot inspection after notice to the parties and inspected the premises In the presence of all the parties. The appellate authority was of the view that having given the premises for the purpose of bakery, the petitioners could not complain of any damage to the property by the user of the premises for such purpose. He was also of the view that whatever new addition of ovens or constructions or alterations were made, they were so made with the oral consent of the power-of-attorney. He was also of the view that the damages shown to him during the inspection were not heavy but minimal and that they cannot be taken as so serious damage as to order eviction on the ground of waste or damage to the building. In this view he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction. It is against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the landladies.