Value or utility of building is to be considered from view point of landlord and not of tenant.

Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.1260 of 1993 on the file of Rent Controller XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the revision petitioner. In this revision petition, court is concerned only about one ground of eviction i.e., under Sec.10(2)(iii) that the tenant has committed or caused to be committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building.

2. According to landlord, tenant has demolished the walls, changed the roof and has committed such acts of waste that have materially affected the value and utility of the building.

3. Exs.P-13, P-14 and P-15 are various photographs and its negatives. To substantiate the case that tenant has committed act of waste, landlord got himself examined and also the photographer who has taken the photographs. Against the evidence of landlord, tenant also led evidence as D.W.1.

4. After evaluating entire evidence, Rent Controller was of the view that mere production of photographs are not sufficient to prove that the value and utility of the building is materially affected and there must be some independent evidence to substantiate the same. On the ground that the case has not been substantiated, the same was found against landlord.

5. Against the order of Rent Controller, landlord filed R.C.A.No.691 of 1996 on the file of the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority was of the view that landlord has substantiated his case and on the basis of evidence already adduced, ground has been made out for eviction. It is against the said finding, tenant has come to this Court with this revision petition.

6. Sincecaveat was entered by respondent, I heard the revision at the admission stage itself with consent of parties.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner relying on the decision reported in R.R.Dinakaran v. S.L.Chinna Kuppuswamy R.R.Dinakaran v. S.L.Chinna Kuppuswamy R.R.Dinakaran v. S.L.Chinna Kuppuswamy , 99 L.W. 678 contended that the acts alleged will not be a ground for eviction. I will come to the decision after considering the law on this point.

8. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Rafat Ali v. Sugni Bai , (1999)1 S.C.C. 133 a case coming under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, in paragraphs 19 and 20, their Lordships held thus:

“19. The third ground for eviction is related to causing damage to the building. For damage to the building to amount to a ground for eviction, its proportion must be as delineated in clause (iii) of Sec.10(2) of the Act;

“That the tenant has committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building.”

All acts of waste do not amount to a ground for eviction. It is only those acts of waste which would very probably impair the value of the building or its utility. The word “likely” in the above clause must be understood as a condition which is reasonably probable that such acts would cause impairment to the value or utility of the building. However, it is not enough that some impairment has been caused to the building. However, it is not enough that some impairment has been caused to the building. The value of the building or utility thereof should have been lessened in a reasonably substantial degree. Then only can it be said that the acts of waste are likely to impair the value or utility of the building “materially”. In Om Pal v. Anand Swarup , (1988)4 S.C.C. 545 the court while considering a similarly worded clause in another rent Control enactment, has observed thus: (S.C.C. Headnote)

“In order to attract Sec.13(2)(iii), the construction must not only be one affecting or dismissing the value or utility of the building but such impairment must be of a material nature, i.e., of a substantial and significant nature. When a construction is alleged to materially impair the value or utility of a building, the construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish the value of the building either from