Patel Md. Siddique vs H.H. The Prince of Arcot Endowment

T. Venkatadri, J.—This Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings before the Rent Controller, Madras. The petitioner is a tenant of a

non-residential building. The respondent originally filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he committed acts of waste on

the property and by engaging masons and other persons he had dug the flooring of the shop to the depth of about three feet and removed the earth

; he had also demolished the front wall to the height of about three feet from the ground level and lowered the doorway. Therefore the landlord

prayed that an order of eviction might be passed against the tenant directing him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the shop bearing No.

683, Triplicane High Road, Triplican e, Madras. This petition was resisted by the petitioner-tenant that he did not commit acts of waste which had

impaired the value of the property and that, on the other hand, he had effected certain repairs which were long overdue and which had very much

enhanced the appearance and value of the property. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial. Evidence was adduced by examining the clerk of

the respondent and the tenant examined himself. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant had

committed acts of waste which had materially impaired the value or utility of the building. Therefore they ordered eviction. It is against this order of

eviction that the tenant had preferred this Civil Revision Petition. I have gone through the evidence and the record as also the orders of the lower

Courts. But I am not able to agree with the findings arrived at by the appellate authority. It is the duty of the Court to see whether there is sufficient

evidence on record to show that the tenant has committed such acts of waste as to impair the value or utility of the building. In R. Govindaswami

Naidu Vs. G. Pushpalammal and Another, a Bench of this Court consisting of Rajamannar C.J., and Somasundaram J., has held that every act of

waste on the part of a tenant will not entitle the landlord to obtain an order of eviction u/s 7(2)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, that it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that a demolition of any wall in a building must necessarily be deemed to be an act of

waste which is likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building and that a finding on this point is a finding which must be based upon the

particular facts as emerge from the evidence that is adduced. But in the present case sufficient evidence has not been placed before the Courts for

coining to the conclusion whether the tenant has caused such damage as to impair materially the value or utility of the building. So in the interests of

parties I remand the Appeal to the appellate authority giving opportunity both to the landlord and the tenant to adduce evidence, preferably an

expert opinion, to enable the appellate authority to come to the conclusion whether the tenant has really caused damage as to impair materially the

value or utility of the building. There will be no order as to costs.