Acts done by tenant constitute act of waste.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner.

2. The respondent herein has filed an application in H.R.C.No. 753 of 1981 before the learned Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, against the petitioner herein and another petition H.R.C.No. 754 of 1981 against another tenant Raj Sihal under Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960) for eviction of the respective tenants on the ground of requirement of the premises for additional accommodation and on the ground of commission of acts of waste that impaired the value and utility of the petition-mentioned premises. The premises is a non-residential building. Both the applications were tried together and a common order was passed. On the side of the respondent herein, he was examined as P.W.I and Exs.P-1 to P-19 were marked. On the side of the petitioner herein and the respondent in H.R.C.No. 754 of 1981, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-7 were marked. The learned Rent Controller, for reasons assigned in his order, dismissed H.R.C.No. 754 of 1981 while he allowed the application in H.R.C. No. 753 of 1981, on the ground that the petitioner herein had committed acts of waste while negativing the claim on the ground that the respondent herein required the building as additional accommodation. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant (petitioner herein) preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras) in H.R.A. No. 1730 of 1981 and met with the same fate. Hence, this Revision.

3. Both the authorities below held that the--petitioner herein has removed one door in the main entrance and since the door is a permanent fixture to the building and even as per the contention of the petitioner herein, the same is being removed often, to bring articles inside the building, it would definitely cause wear and tear and give way and as such it would amount to causing damage to the building, which will impair the value and utility of the building. Similarly, the tenant herein viz., the petitioner herein, had blocked the drainage system by storing wooden chips and hay-rick, as a result of which, the respondent herein had to pay a sum of Rs. 504 under Ex.P-18 to the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board for restoration of the drainage. The third ground alleged is that the act of the petitioner herein in permitting his workmen to use flames to solder is a fire hazard in view of stacking of packing materials like wooden chips and hay-rick, which are combustible and inflamable and the said act also would impair the value and utility of the building.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner herein Mr. Damodar Raj mainly contended that the respondent herein has not stated in the petition as to how the three acts alleged would impair the value and utility of the building. It is further contended by him. that the door in the main wall is an old one and it is usual to remove it so as to take the goods inside and again to replace it and there were hinges on the door-frames and even according to the report of the learned Commissioner, the main door which was removed, is kept safely and as such, it cannot be said that the said act would amount to an act of waste. As regards the blocking of the drainage, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that the blocking of the drainage has not been referred to in the notice Ex.P-1 sent by the respondent herein and that the learned Commissioner has also not noted in his report and absolutely there are no details as to at what point of time and where it was blocked or about the cause for such blocking, since admittedly the drain water comes from the top floor. The learned Counsel also submitted that the wooden chips and hay-rick can be removed at any stage and there is absolutely nothing in the report of the Commissioner to support the said contention or in Ex.P-1 notice and as such