G. NATARAJAN Vs. P. THANDAVARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner. It is common ground that the petitioner secured the suit premises on lease for the purpose of carrying on the business of hoteliering and the petitioner for the purposes of his trade was, in occupation of the property adjacent to the suit premises as well. The landlord found that the tenant had drilled a hole 3" in diameter in the terrace portion of the main building and also removed a portion of the parapet wall on the terrace of the building to a length 2' x 3' or 3 1/2. Characterising such acts of the tenant as acts of waste and also on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent, the respondent filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking for the eviction of the petitioner as tenant in the suit premises. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court found that there was no wilful default and the acts excerpted above cannot be characterised as acts of waste within the meaning of Section 10(2)(iii) of Act XVIII of 1960. The learned District Judge, however, on revision under Section 25 of the said Act, differed from the findings of the tribunals and directed eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) ARGUING for the tenant, Mr. Balasubramaniam contends that the drilling of a hole in the terrace for the purpose of creating a second outlet for the smoke which is obviously a necessary evil in hoteliering business, as well as the removal of a parapet wall to a height of 2' or 2 1/2' to enable his employees housed in the adjacent building taken on lease by him to have ingress and egress to the hotel premises, are not acts of waste which in any wise can be said to impair materially the value or utility of the building. As already stated the petitioner obtained a lease of the suit premises for hoteliering business. Necessarily, he has to have kitchens inside the premises and the smoke emanating therefrom possibly had to be let out not only through the then existing outlet but also through another, which he voluntarily annexed and imprinted into the building, so as to save the building from smear and smoke. The Rent Controller and the appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the drilling of hole of the manner complained of by the respondent cannot be said to be an act of waste within the meaning of the section quoted above. Even so the removal of a portion of a parapet wall for temporarily accommodating his employees housed in the adjacent building cannot in any view be said to be one which would impair the utility of the building or its value.

(3.) MR . Raghavan, learned Counsel for the respondent, however would state that the drilling of the hole by itself might be a cause to let in rain water and if such letting is continuous during the seasons the building is likely to be damaged. There is evidence in this case that the tenant had taken all necessary precautions to prevent such undue inflow of rain water into the premises. It is also but natural to expect that a person installing a smoke pipe primarily with the intention of letting out smoke from a kitchen would take the elementary precaution of avoiding rain water through that very smoke pipe. This has been done in this case. Regarding the parapet wall, the cutting of a portion of the wall to a height of 2' in the terrace and cementing the base so that it could constitute a passage for persons to go in and come out through it cannot also by any process be considered to be one which would impair the value or the utility of the building.