Tenant held liable to be evicted.

Govindasamy, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment dt.4-2-1984 in CMA.NO. 43 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority (Subordinate- fudge) Karur, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing Door No. 12-K situate in Pugalur Road, Inam Karur Sub Registrar District and Karur Village, West Karur Registration District. The respondent herein instituted proceedings, viz., R.C.O.P.No. 23 of 1981 on the file of the Rent controller (Principal District Munsif) Karur, under Section 10(2) (ii) (b) of the Act for eviction on the ground that the Petitioner had taken the demised premises on lease on a monthly rental of Rs. 40 to run the handloom business known as "Revathi Textiles". Subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs. 120 p.m. with effect from 18-4-1981. The Petitioner later used the demised premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out, i.e., the respondent-landlady originally leased out the demised premises to run the handloom business, but without the consent and knowledge of the respondent, the Petitioner had located "Saminathapuram Arrack shop" in the property and consequently fought for eviction.

3. The Petitioner herein resisted the said application contending inter alia that it was not correct to state that the Petitioner herein had taken the demised premises on lease to run the handloom business known as "Revathi Textiles" and that the Petitioner has taken the demised premises on lease only as non-residential building to run any business as desired by him. The Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner did not carry on any business right from the inception of lease dated, 17-10-1969. At the time when the Petitioner had taken the demised premises on lease he did not decide the business which he was then intent to carry on. The Petitioner further contended that he was legally entitled to run any business of his choice and that the running of the arrack shop in the demised premises did not violate any contract or provision of lease, since there was no provision as alleged.

4. On consideration of the facts' and evidence or record, learned Rent Controller proceeded on the basis that in the reply notice issued by the Petitioner herein, he did not state that he, was entitled to carry on any business of his choice, that there was no document to show that the petitioner was entitled to carry on any business of his choice, that the Petitioner admitted that he was running "Revathi Textiles" in the premises prior to the arrack shop business, that the petitioner had not proved that he was entitled to use the premises for any business and that the Petitioner had also not proved the written consent given by the previous owner and consequently it was not possible to presume that the building was let out to carry on any business by the Petitioner. The, learned Rent Controller also proceeded that since the revision petitioner was running "Revathi Textiles in the demised premises and later admittedly was running an arrack shop business, which was entirely a different business and since the petitioner had not obtained the written consent of the respondent's predecessor he was liable for eviction. Finally, the learned Rent Controller allowed the Petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner/tenant preferred an appeal C.M.A. No. 43 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur the Appellate Authority, under the Act. The appellate Authority proceeded on the basis that since there was no document to show that for what purpose the property was rented out to the Petitioner and since the Petitioner had been carrying on his handloom business under the name and style of "Revathi Textiles" in the demised premises till 1980, it could be easily presumed that the demised premises was let out only for