JOHN MATHEW Vs. P NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern these two revisions which have arisen from an order of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, made in two RCAs namely RCA No. 966/2004 at the instance of the tenant and RCA no. 740/2004 at the instance of the landlord who failed in both the forums.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and looked into the materials available.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, there was a written agreement between the parties; that there is a specific Clause in the lease deed that the lessee shall not carry out any structural alterations whatsoever in the demised premises; that despite the same, so many alterations were made; that all have been narrated in the course of the application; that an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed; that he made an inspection of the premises after notice to the parties; that he has put 9 Clauses in his report, wherein he has pointed out that alterations have been made in the building and even the ceramic tiles were removed from the field, and some of the walls have been demolished; that the petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 where he has categorically stated about the alterations which are structural in nature; that it is pertinent to point out that the respondent-tenant also examined himself as R. W. 1; that he has also admitted what was all stated by the Commissioner in his report; that agreeing with the case of the petitioner-landlord, the Rent controller has given a detailed order recording a finding that all those structural alterations have been done, and they have been noted by the commissioner in his report, and they are all nothing but act of waste, and therefore, the petitioner-landlord was entitled for an order of eviction and accordingly, passed so; but, the appellate forum has set aside that order on the grounds that they were not structural alterations, and they cannot be termed as an act of waste; but, they are all adding to the value of the property, and the Advocate Commissioner was not technically qualified, and he is not competent to speak about the act of waste, and under the circumstances, the order of the Rent Controller was to be set aside, and accordingly set aside. The learned Counsel took the Court to the part of the Commissioner's report and the admissions made by the respondent-tenant before the Rent controller as to the alterations made, and also relied on the lease deed entered into between the parties. The learned Counsel would submit that Clause no. 14 of the lease deed speaks about the fact that the lessee should not carry out any structural alterations; that under the circumstances, the appellate forum should have affirmed the order of the Rent Controller, but failed to do so, and hence, both the revisions have got to be ordered, and the order of eviction has got to be restored.