R R DINAKARAN Vs. S L CHINNAKUPPUSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under S.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been preferred by a tenant, who is aggrieved against an order of eviction passed by the appellate authority against him under S.10 (2) (iii) of the Act.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the respondent herein, who is the landlord, has leased out the petition premises to the petitioner for non- residential purposes, to wit, running a hotel. Originally the petitioner had taken the building on lease from the respondent.s father, but subsequently on partition in the family, the petitioner had attorned the tenancy to the respondent and has been paying the agreed rent of Rs.100 per month. On the ground that the tenant had committed acts of waste in the building and thereby impaired materially the value and utility of the building, the respondent filed R.C.O. P.No 559 of 1978 under S.10(2)(iii) of the Act for evicting the petitioner. Besides recording the evidence of the parties in the enquiry before him, the Rent Controller also issued a warrant of commission and had the premises inspected by an Advocate-Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner has submitted a plan and report wherein he stated that the tenant has replaced the old tin roof with zinc sheet roof in certain portions and he has also provided a plywood ceiling in the main hall, that he has replaced the mud walls with brick walls and that he has also replaced the wooden pillars with brick pillars in the eastern hall. The Rent Controller went into the matter in great detail and held that far from impairing the value of the building either from the point of value or utilitarian aspect, the tenant had effected improvements to the building and as such there is no scope for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant under S.10(2)(iii) of the Act. Consequently the Rent Controller dismissed the petition for eviction.

(3.) IN order to canvass the correctness of the order of the appellate authority, the tenant has preferred this revision. Before we go to the facts of the case, it will be relevant to refer to the terms of S.10(2)(iii) of the Act. The said S.10 (2) (iii) reads as follows: