R. KUMARASAMY Vs. DEVARAJ ARCADE PRIVATE LIMITED & COMPANY REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 177, N.P.N. STREET, SITHAPUTHUR, COIMBATORE. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T. JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. For the convenience of the court, the parties are referred as per their rank before the trail court. The land lord/petitioner has filed R.C.O.P. No. 53 of 2005 against the tenant/respondent on the ground of Act of Waste and Nuisance. The respondent was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3,016.00 in the year 1991. The lease is for non residential purpose for running restaurant. The tenancy was renewed from time to time and finally the lease agreement was executed into between the petitioner and respondent on 01.08.2002. Thereafter the lease was renewed orally and the respondent has been continued his business as on today. While so, the respondent approached the petitioner for the lease of front side of vacant portion covered by the title roof measuring 103.5 square feet for extension of shop. The petitioner in a good faith agreed to extent the lease hold premises and thereby additional lease agreement was entered into between them on 03.12.2004. For the lease of front portion of the vacant site, the respondent agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.1000.00 with effect from 01.01.2005 onwards. The terms of additional lease agreement dated 03.12.2004 specifically stipulated the condition that no part of building shall be demolished or altered or additional construction to be put up without obtaining consent of landlord in writing.

(2.) The further case of the petitioner is that contrary to the above said condition the tenant started demolishing the sun side walls of lease hold premises and removed title roof which was appending the main building without the knowledge and consent of landlord. The petitioner objected the unlawful act of the respondent. But the respondent despite the objection did not heed to the request of petitioner, has caused several damage to the building. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a police compliant against the respondent on 25.12004. Since, the respondent violated the terms and condition of lease agreement, the petitioner filed suit against the respondent in O.S.No. 4547 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court for permanent injunction and obtained order of status quo. The respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No. 4539 of 2005, on the very same day and both the suits are pending. The commissioner was appointed in the above suit and filed a report which would prove the damages caused by the respondent to the demised premises. The respondent has no right to put up additional construction or alter the existing structure without permission of land lord. Hence, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent on 28.104 cancelling the additional lease hold area and the respondent also sent a reply to the same. Since, the respondent caused the extensive damage to the building which amounts to act of waste and so the respondent is liable to be evicted.

(3.) The petitioner also assessed the damage caused to the building by the qualified Engineer and the Engineer given a report about the damage caused to the building and value of cost. The respondent never used to clean the food wastage properly and does causing nuisance to the neighbor of the restaurant. For the above reason the petitioner has filed R.C.O.P for eviction under section 10(2) (III) and (V) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control ) Act.