M MADHESWARI Vs. D MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is as under:

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the respondents/ Landlords, the first petitioner has sublet the premises by converting the proprietorship firm into partnership concern by inducting the petitioners 3 and 4 as partners and thereby, the petitioners are liable to be evicted under Section 10(2) (ii) (c) of the Act. Further, the petitioners/tenants converted the business from Provision Store to shop dealing with cosmetic, gold covering jewellary without any permission from the Landlord. Further, it is also the case of the respondents/Landlord that the entire marble flooring and front side steps in the premises were demolished and blocked the pathway in the premises. Therefore, the said act of the revision petitioners/ tenants amounts to act of waste and the petitioners seeking for the petition mentioned property for his own use and occupation, intended to start textile business in the premises by the fourth respondent herein. Counter statement has been filed by the petitioners/tenants in the said RCOP rebutting the averments made in the petition.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants is that without appreciating the finding rendered by the Rent Controller simply confirmed the order by stating that with regard to the ground of change of user, act of waste and for own occupation, the reasonings given by the lower court with regard to the above aspects does not needs any interference and accordingly the same is upheld. In view of the above findings there is no necessity for this court to have a detailed discussion on the above grounds.