BALAMBAL Vs. DEVASENATHIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant in R.C.A,No. 1186 of 1985 on the file of the appellate authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, is the petitioner in this revision petition and the respondent is the landlord.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No. 2353 of 1984 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Sec.10(2) (v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of nuisance. According to him, the petition building was let out to the tenant for running wet grinding machines, that his wife is a heart patient and, therefore, even while letting out the premises to the tenant, it was agreed that the tenant should not erect machineries which would create noise affecting the health of his wife. It was further contended that the tenant, in disregard of his undertaking had installed flour mills in the petition building and has been running the same from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day thus creating great annoyance and mental agony to his wife and which has resulted in aggravating her disease leading to complications.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that the theory of hammering in the flour mill run by the tenant is only an afterthought and the same was not mentioned in the petition filed by the landlord for eviction. It is no doubt true that there is no such specific allegation in the petition. But Courts have held that the pleadings in the rent control petitions need not be strictly construed as in civil suits. P.Ws.1 and 2 have given positive evidence on this aspect which stands uncontradicted. It is significant to note that the tenant has not been examined as a witness in this case. Even though this Court initially felt that the landlord cannot object to the running of a flour mill as the building has been let out only for that purpose, after specific evidence was pointed out to the effect that a part from normal activities the tenant is indulging in constant hammering in the premises, it has to be held that such acts would amount to nuisance. If only the tenant had chosen to deny the positive evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 by examining herself as a witness, this Court would have taken a different view. As the matter stands, the allegations of the landlord stand unchallenged and the same have got to be accepted. Moreover, it is a pure question of fact which has been accepted by the appellate authority. Therefore, I do not fine any valid grounds to interfere with such finding of fact in this revision petition. There is no material irregularity or illegality in the judgment of the appellate authority warranting interferance from this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.