A tenant can be evicted from a rented property on the grounds of wilful default in paying rent, using the building for a different purpose than what it was let for, causing active waste and nuisance to neighbours, and ceasing to occupy the building for more than six months without any reasonable cause.

Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.41 of 1988 on the file of Rent Controller, Tirunelveli is the revision petitioner.

2. Landlord filed application for eviction of tenant on the ground of wilful default, for different user, tenant has committed active waste in the property and also causing nuisance to neighbours and also ceased to occupy the building for more than six months without any reasonable cause. Rent Controller after taking evidence held that tenant is liable to be evicted only on the ground of wilful default and making use of the building for other use other than for which the building is let out. All the other grounds are found against. The same has become final.

3. Challenging the order of Rent Controller, tenant filed R.C.A.No.51 of 1993 before Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli, Appellate Authority also confirmed the decision of Rent Controller by dismissing the appeal. The same is challenged in this revision petition.

4. In his eviction petition, landlord contended that the building is a non-residential building and including scheduled premises, there are nine shop rooms, all used for nonresidential purposes only. Petitioner herein was allowed to occupy the building on rent for purpose of conducting a photo studio under the name and style “Balu Studio’ on his agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.400. Rent is to be paid to both the landlords at the rate of Rs.8,200 each. Rental arrangement also provides that any landlord can receive rent on behalf of the other.

5. Landlord further alleged that rent was paid only till December, 1986 and no rent was paid thereafter and as on February, 1988, more than Rs.5,000 is due towards rent arrears. It is also averred that on 28. 1987, tenant began to make use of the scheduled premises for his residence also. He is residing there with his family and he is also preparing food in the premises. There is no provision for kitchen,bathroom and bedroom in the premises and it is constructed only as shop room. In view of tenant making use of scheduled premises as residential house, he is liable to be evicted.

6. In the counter statement filed by tenant he contended that there are five rooms in the scheduled premises and even at the time when rental arrangement was taken, he was permitted to use the building for residential purpose and remaining portion as photo studio. He also said that landlord demanded enhancement of rent from August, 1987 at the rate of Rs.500, which demand was not accepted by him. On 28. 1987, landlord with his associates forcibly entered scheduled premises and removed many articles belonging to tenant and the same is subject matter of a police complaint made by him. Police complaint was made by him on 28. 1987. According to him, he has paid rent for entire period and rent receipts were also taken by landlord when he forcibly entered on 28. 1987. He is not a defaulter and not liable to be evicted.

7. Rent controller on the above pleadings took oral and documentary evidence. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on the side of landlord, who got examined himself as P.W.1 on the side of tenant Exs.B-1 to B-22 were marked and he got himself examined as D.W.1. Rent Controller held that the contention of tenant that landlord has removed rent receipts and therefore he is not in a position to prove the discharge of rent arrears, is not true. He has not paid rent from January, 1987 and for 14 months he is in arrears. Rent Controller also took note of the fact that only after filing application under Sec.11 (4) of the Act, tenant thought of depositing rent in the court. Landlord filed three applications and only when orders are passed. tenant was in the habit of depositing rent in the court. Taking into consideration the conduct of tenant, Rent Controller found that he is wilful defaulter and liable to be evicted.

8. In regard to the contention that tenant is using building for different purpose, Rent Controller held that the case of landlord stands proved. The fact that entire premises