T.S.O. Abdul Khader vs G.H. Rao

Ramakrishnan, J.—According to the lease deed exhibit P-1 the suit premises were let out for a residential purpose. The landlord sought for eviction on the grounds (i) that the tenant had used it for a non-residential purpose and (ii) that the landlord required it bona fide for his residence. The Kent Controller found that the tenant had used it for a non-residential purpose contrary to the terms of the letting. But the appellate Court found that by acquiescence, the landlord had given his consent to the tenant for using the premises for a non-residential purpose, even though the original letting was for a residential purpose. The appellate Court was not inclined to accept the plea of the tenant that the recital in the lease deed about the purpose being residential, was a mistake for non-residential. The appellate Court''s finding is that the landlord''s conduct implied an acquiescence in the user of the building for a non-residential purpose be the tenant, and that it would Simply a consent on the part of the landlord for such user. But Section 10(2)(ii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act requires the written consent of the landlord if the building let out were to be used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. Therefore, any kind of acquiescence by the landlord or estoppel by his conduct, cannot be a substitute for the plain requirement of the statute about a written consent. The reference to two English decisions in the judgment of the lower appellate Court has no relevancy in view of the special provision in our statute. I therefore, find that in the absence of a written consent, the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant for having used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out. On the second point, the lower appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller that the landlord required the building for the bona fide purpose of his own residence.

The result of the above finding is that the order of the lower appellate Court has to be set aside and the order of the Kent Controller has to be restored. It is ordered accordingly. As the tenant has been in occupation for over twenty years, six months'' time will be given to him to vacate the premises. The Revision Petitions are allowed with costs in this Court.