S M MOHAMED MEERA SHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who suffered eviction before the authorities below has filed the above revision.

(2.) THE landlord filed R. C. O. P. No. 1361 of 1990 on the file of the learned Rent controller/xvi Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Sections 10 (2) (ii) (b) and 10 (2) (iii) of Act 18 of 1960. According to the landlord, the tenant had constructed a pucca wall from floor to ceiling level in the central hall of the two floors in between two pillars, in the building in question thereby the central hall had been partitioned into two portions. He had put up a door way in the said wall. Apart from that he had raised a wall in the open terrace and covered the same with asbestos sheet thereby converting the open terrace into a constructed portion. According to the landlord the said additions and alterations are unauthorised and without any permission. Since the building is very old and aged one it would not bear any extra weight that may be put up by the tenant. THE said constructions have materially impaired the value and utility of the building. According to the landlord, the tenant has put up unauthorised construction and has been using the second floor for dwelling purposes which is not the purpose for which the building was let out. THE tenant contested the petition by filing counter. According to the tenant he raised a small wall preventing access to the adjacent owners and since the light ro of ing has become old and leaky, he has provided A. C. sheet ro of ing over and above the false ro of ing. With respect to the wall in the ground floor it is the case of the tenant that he has raised a wall only to the height of 4 feet running to a length of four feet in order to make the entire ground floor available to the tenant. he denied the allegation that he is using the second floor for dwelling purpose. THE Rent Controller has not accepted the case of the landlord under Section 10 (2) (ii) (b), but he has ordered eviction under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act, accepting the case of the landlord. THE tenant filed the appeal R. C. A. No. 859 of 1992. THE learned Appellate Authority/vii judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras also confirmed the order of the Rent controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has filed the above Revision.

(3.) NORMALLY, waste will mean a spoil or destruction to houses, gardens, trees, or other corporeal hereditaments and can be broadly divided into two divisions, voluntary waste and permissive waste. voluntary waste is actual or commissive, as by pulling down houses, or altering their structure, and permissive waste is a matter of negligence and omission as by suffering buildings to fall or rot for want of necessary reparations. In addition to the said two broad'divisions of waste'it is also possible to divide it into'ameliorating waste'and'equitable waste.'ameliorating waste' is such voluntary waste as improves the demised premises as where a tenant puts a new front to his house.'equitable waste'consists in acts or gross damage, usually the cutting down ornamental timber by a tenant. It has been held by courts that turning two rooms into one or a hall into a stable, building a new house where there was none before, pulling down a house even though it be rebuilt afterwards are acts of waste.