ORDER: The revision petitioner is the landlord of a premises in Madras. He sought for eviction of the first respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3334 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller on three grounds, namely, sub-letting wilful default in the payment of rent and putting the building to a different user than the one for which it was leased out. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction only on the ground of sub-letting and different user and dismissed that petition on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. However on appeal in R.C.A.No.307 of 1994, the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and set aside the finding of the Rent Controller on the other two grounds. It is the correctness of the said order of the Appellate Authority that is being challenged in this revision before this Court by the landlord.

2. The second respondent in this revision is stated to be the unauthorised sub-tenant under the first respondent. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, on the facts pleaded, proved and established, the tenant is definitely guilty of putting the building to a different user and therefore the Appellate Authority had definitely erred, both in law and on facts, in dismissing the eviction petition on the grounds stated therein, though there may be something to say as far as the ground of sub-letting is concerned. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the order of the Appellate Authority must be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that this Court, being a revisional court, should not re-appreciate the entire evidence examined and come to a different conclusion, if the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority is a possible conclusion. In other words, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that, simply because this Court can arrive at a different conclusion on the same set of facts, this Court should not normally interfere while it exercises the revisional power. As far as the different user is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the tenancy is for non-residential purpose in general and without reference to any particular business as it is. This would mean that the tenant would be at liberty to carry on any business as he likes. If the case of the landlord is examined in the context of the above facts, then from the mere fact that in the demised premises a tailoring business is carried on, it cannot be said that the building in question had been put to a different user. Carrying on business in running veterinary clinic in the demised premises and carrying on business in tailoring in the same premises, would come within the meaning of non-residential purpose and therefore it cannot be said that the building had been put to a different user. The landlord had not produced any agreement in writing to show that the tenancy was for a particular business purpose and not for non-residential purpose in general. Therefore the Appellate Authority had rightly held that there is no different user. As far as sub-letting is concerned, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that, the second respondent is none else than the son of the first respondent and the first respondent had not parted with possession of the building in favour of the second respondent. This being the essential requirement to establish sub-letting, even the ground of sub-letting must be held against the landlord.

3. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, I applied my mind to the entire materials available on record. In the rent control petition, it is categorically stated as follows:

“The rental agreement was executed between the petitioner and the first respondent on 9.3.1986. It is submitted th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document