MUTHU THEVAR Vs. S INDIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1996 made in R.C.A.No.38 of 1995 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.4.1995 made in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1993 by the Rent Controller and District Munsif, Tiruthuraipoondi.

(2.) TO trade the history of the case, the rent control original petition has been filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenant on four grounds, viz., (i) for wilful default under Sec. 10(2)(i); (ii) for different user under Sec. 10(2)(ii)(b); (iii) for act of waste under Sec.10(2)(iii); and (iv) for demolition and reconstruction under Sec.14(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?).

(3.) THE learned counsel would further contend that there is no change of purpose regarding the introduction of the xerox machine into the shop; that Sec.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act is not at all attracted, since the building is not used for the purpose other than for which it was leased; that by introducing the xerox machine, the same business has been slightly improved and the same cannot be taken as user of the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased; that the purpose for which the premises was leased out in favour of the petitioner is meaning thereby for using it as shop and for trade purposes; that the utility of the premises is not altered by installing the xerox machine. THErefore, different user as meant under Sec. 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act does not arise in this case at all and the question of seeking permission also does not arise; that to keep the xerox machine, no alteration was made in the premises, nor any act of waste committed; that in the absence of such inconvenience or loss or alteration to the building, the ground of different user cannot at all arise.