Landlord can seek eviction for his sons occupation provided he does not own a building of his own.

Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller/III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore is the revision petitioner herein.

2. Landlord claimed eviction on the ground that tenant has committed active waste in the property and also on the ground that the building is required for own occupation of his son who has been married and who has no building of his own.

3. It is the case of landlord that tenant has constructed a water tank in front of the house and is also making use the front portion as bathroom and consequently water gets stagnated and the same has affected the wall and floor of the building. This according to landlord is active waste which has affected the utility and strength of the building permanently. It is also alleged by landlord that one of his sons got married in 1993 and he is not having building of his own and he along with his wife is now residing in a rented building. He wants to occupy the scheduled building.

4. In the counter-statement filed by tenant/revision petitioner, he denied both these allegations. According to him, contention of landlord that there are eight members in his family and all of them are residing in the house is not correct. His son whose marriage has been conducted in 1993 is occupying Government quarters and there is no necessity for him to occupy the scheduled building. He also contended that he has not committed any active waste and strength of the building is not affected in any way. He also said that he cannot make use of front portion as bathroom and it is too much to assume that female members will take bath openly. According to him, the allegation is only a pretext for eviction and the same has no bona fides.

5. On the above pleadings, Rent controller took oral and documentary evidence. Exs.A-1 to A-16 were armed on the side of landlord and P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on the side of landlord. On the side of tenant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was produced.

6. Onthe above evidence, Rent Controller held that landlord has proved both the grounds for eviction and an order of eviction and an order of eviction was passed granting two months time to surrender vacant possession.

7. Beforefurther going into the merits of the case, it is seen that landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent as R.C.O.P.No.198 of 1994. For the said purpose a commissioner was deputed to assess the value of the building. While assessing the market value, Commissioner seems to have reported that in front portion of the scheduled building water gets stagnated since there is water tank in front of the house. It is also seem to have reported that since the front portion is used as bathroom, the wall and the floor of the front portion of the building have become wet. Ex.A-13 is the Commissioners report in the case.

8. Both the Rent Controller as well as appellate authority relying on Ex.A-13 held that tenant has committed active waste in the property and he is liable to be evicted.

9. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the said finding of Rent Controller is based on no evidence and the appellate authority also acted illegally in confirming the same.

10. After hearing counsel on both sides I find that the said submission of learned counsel is only to be accepted. Ex.A-13 is commissioners report filed in application for fixation of fair rent. Commissioner was also deputed to assess the cost of construction and the amenities provided in the building. Therefore, there is no necessity for commissioner to assess the damages or how far the user of the building has affected the stability of the building. The Commissioner has gone beyond the scope of his warrant and when he has no authority to assess the damage, it should not have been relied on. In fact, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he has filed serious objections to that report. Ex.A-13 also do not show any damage which has affected the utility or stability o