In the absence of written consent from the landlord, acquiescence or estoppel by conduct cannot be a substitute for the requirement of written consent for a change of user of the leased premises under Section 10(2)(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. 332/92 on the file of Appellate Authority (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras), in which the learned Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal and set aside the order in RCOP. 1462/ 88 passed by the Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) and thereby had allowed the petition.

2. Short facts are:

The respondent has filed RCOP. No. 1462/ 88 against the petitioner for eviction under Section 10(2)(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows:-

The respondent is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of non-residential building bearing Door No. 9/ 1, Srinivasa Road, T. Nagar for the purpose of running a hotel on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. The respondent was carrying the hotel business under the name and style of "Vijayalakshmi Tiffin Centre". In the second week of April, 1988; after her return from Vijayawada, the petitioner was surprised to find the business of cool drinks bar in the demised premises. Without the written consent of the petitioner, the respondent has put the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. Hence he is liable to be evicted.

3. The respondent has resisted the claim on the following grounds:-

The tenancy is admitted. The respondent denies that the purpose of letting and user is for running a hotel only. The letting was for non-residential user of the premises. The tenancy commenced even during the life time of Mukundala Narayana, since dead. The tenancy commenced in or about 1976. The portion taken for tenancy is the hall, an adjoining kitchen and the rear portion of No. 78. Mukundala Narayana treated it as two tenancies viz., the tenancy in respect of the hall and the adjoining kitchen as one in favour of the respondent and that of the rest of the portion in favour of the respondent's wife, Nagammal. The receipt dt. 29-9-76, mentions only about the letting out as a shop viz., for non-residential user and the letting out by him to the respondent is not for the purpose of running only a hotel business. With the permission of Mukundala Narayana, the respondent got separate line for electric supply for the said portions. Since then, he is carrying on his hotel business under the name and style of "Vijayalakshmi Tiffin Centre." and also a pan shop, selling Aerated water, biscuits and other things.

4. On the oral direction of Mukundala Narayana, the rent for the hall and kitchen was being paid to the petitioner. After the death of Mukundala Narayana, the respondent has been a tenant under the petitioner only in respect of the hall bequeathed to her under the Will executed by Mukundala Narayana. The tenancy is continuing. The petitioner filed RCOP. NO. 2714/ 84 under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act. It was dismissed as she withdrew the same. Now she has come forward with this petition for eviction on the ground of different user. Since the petitioner and other claimants are fighting over their rights, the drawing of water from the well in the portion of property now owned by the other wife of Mukundala Narayana is denied to the petitioners. The respondent is not a in a position to continue the hotel business. He enlarged his business, a pan shop and fancy goods, retaining the hotel portion for resuming his hotel business, as and when he gets the water connection. The respondent denies that any business of cool drink bar is carried on in the premises. Even under the terms of tenancy, with Mukundala Narayana, he is entitled to use it for any business and not for the purpose of hotel only. Hence dismissal of this petition is prayed for.

5. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides, had allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the trial court has come forward with this r