Landlord has to prove that the change effected impaired the value and utility of the building.

Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1990, on the file of Rent Controller, Tiruppur, is the revision petitioner.

2. Eviction was sought by respondent herein on the ground that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for a period of eight months at the rate of Rs.700 per mensem. There was a further averment that the tenant has sub-let the building without the written consent of the landlord and that he has also committed acts of waste which has reduced the value and utility of the building permanently.

3. The said allegations were seriously opposed by the revision petitioner. In his counter statement, he further said that he is not the real tenant, but his brother Kondappan is doing business under the name and style of ‘A.K.N. Textiles’, and he is not liable to pay rent much less arrears of rent. He further denied having sub-let the building. Regarding the allegations of waste, it was further contended that he has not done any act which has affected the utility of the building and, therefore, eviction cannot be allowed.

4. Rent Controller, as per order dated 111. 1991, held that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted on two grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) acts of waste. The ground of sub-lease was found as not substantiated by the Rent Controller.

5. The matter was taken in appeal by the tenant in R.C.A. No.l of 1992, on the file of Appellate Authority (Sub Judge, Tiruppur). Before the Appellate Authority, the landlord did not canvass the correctness of the finding against him in so far as the ground of eviction of unauthorised sub-letting. The Appellate Authority confirmed the other two findings and also confirmed the order of eviction.

6. The legality and propriety of the orders of the Authorities below are challenged in this revision.

7.I will first take into consideration the contention put forward by learned counsel for the tenant, whether the landlord has substantiated his case that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of acts of waste.

.8. Before going into the evidence in this case, the averments in the petition may be extracted. In paragraph 5 of the eviction petition, it is said thus:

."The petitioner submits the respondent has recently damaged the ‘Sarapalakais’ doors in front of the shop injuring the petitioner’s building-shop. He has no authority or business to do so. Committing such acts of waste without the consent of the landlord/ petitioner impairing the utility and value of this property, he is liable to be evicted under Sec.10(2)(iii) of Act 18 of 1960."

9. The said allegation is denied in paragraph 6 of the counter statement.

.10. In chief-examination, this is the only sentence that has been elicited from the petitioner.

.He has no case in the chief-examination that by substituting the existing door with a wider one, the value and utility of the building has been affected. In the cross-examination, it is stated thus:

11. This is the only evidence regarding the alleged waste. The counter petitioner got himself examined as R.W.1. He admitted that he has put up a new door, but at the same time, he has not damaged the building. It is only for the safety of his business that he has done so.

12. Learned Rent Controller was of the view that if a new door is put up, naturally, portions of wall will have to be demolished and then alone the door could be inserted. In that way, the building is damaged. Therefore, to that extent, the utility of the building is also affected. The Appellate Authority also took the same view.

.13. According to me, the said finding of the Authorities below has no legal basis. Sec.10 (2)(iii) says ‘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."

14. In Sh. Om Pa l v. Sh.Anand Swarup, J.T. (1988)4 S.C. 46, their Lordships considered the meaning of the words "as are likely to impair materially the