Landlord is not entitled to order of eviction on the ground of change of user.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 13.1.2003, passed in R.C.A.No.366/2002 on the file of the VII Court of Small Causes, Madras, setting aside the order of eviction dated 28.3.2002 passed in R.C.O.P.No.926/2000, on the file of the XIII Court of Small Causes, Madras.)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 13.1.2003, passed in R.C.A.No.366/2002 on the file of the VII Court of Small Causes, Madras, setting aside the order of eviction dated 28.3.2002 passed in R.C.O.P.No.926/2000, on the file of the XIII Court of Small Causes, Madras.

2. The brief facts leading to the Revision Petition are as follows:-

The Revision Petitioners filed RCOP No.926/2000 on the file of 13th Court of Small Causes, Chennai against the respondents herein for eviction under Sec.10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). By order dated 28.3.2002, the Rent Controller allowed the RCOP on all the grounds and ordered eviction against which the 1st respondent herein filed Appeal in RCA No.366/2002 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 13.1.2003 reversed the order of the Rent Controller and allowed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13.1.2003, the above Revision Petition has been filed under Sec.25 of the Act.

3. The case of the Revision Petitioners is that the premises in Ground Floor and First Floor in High Towers situated at No.40-A, Nungambakkam High Rioad, Chennai.34 was leased to the 1st respondent herein. The rent and amenity charges payable for the ground floor is a sum of Rs.18,634/- per month and a sum of Rs.13,552/- per month for the first floor. The 1st respondent committed wilful default in payment of the rent for the period December 1999 to May 2000. The 1st respondent has also committed waste in the first floor of the building by demolishing the bath room without the permission of the Revision Petitioners. The 1st respondent has also sub-let the leased property to the 2nd respondent herein and the 1st respondent is also using the property for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out. The Revision Petitioners also require the property for the business of their son who was doing business in a rented premises at Purasawalkam by paying a huge monthly rent of Rs.29,000/-. Therefore the eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default, committing act of waste, sub-letting, using the property for other purpose and also on the ground of bona fide requirement of the property.

4. The 2nd respondent herein who was the sub-tenant, according to the Revision Petitioners, was also added as a party in RCOP No.926/2000 but they did not choose to contest the same and remained exparte. The 1st respondent resisted the eviction proceedings as not maintainable on the ground that the business carried on in the petition premises was by a partnership firm and the RCOP was filed only against one partner, without adding the other partner as a party. According to the 1st respondent no wilful default was committed by him and it was the Revision Petitioners who refused to receive the rents from them. He further contended that the property was not sub-let to the 2nd respondent as alleged by the Revision Petitioners. He only entered into a franchisee agreement with the 2nd respondent for a commission of 20% on actual MRP sales. Further the allegation made against him that he had demolished the bathroom in the first floor and thereby committed an act of waste is false as the same was done with the oral consent of the Revision Petitioners and the property is being used only for running a sports and allied goods shop as mentioned in the lease agreement. The Rent Controller did not accept the contentions raised by the 1st respondent herein and allowed the RCOP and ordered eviction.

5. The Appellate Authority even though accepted that the 1st res