Tenants who have lost in both the forums below have come forward with this civil revision petition. Present respondent instituted R.C.O.P.No.10 of 1988 in the Court of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Mayiladuthurai seeking eviction under Sections 10(2)

(ii) (b) and 10(2) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the allegations that the revision petitioners are using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and that they have committed acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. It is the case of the landlord that the demised property is the ground floor measuring 10’X95’ of Door No.5, Second street, Mayiladuthurai Town. This non-residential premises was let out to the revision petitioner under Ex.P. 1 agreement dated 31-7-1978 for the purpose of running Textile shop, Jewellery shop and Medical shop for a period of 15 years from 1-7-1978 on a monthly rent ranging from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1238/- as specified therein. However, contrary to the terms of the tenancy revision petitioners are running a Pawn-broker’s shop in the premises without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. Besides they have carried out structural alteration in the building in respect of windows, doors, almirahs and angles. They have lowered the floor space below the road level. They have also raised a wall in the verandah thereby putting in a barricade between the verandah portion and the space leading to the staircase. Whereas the revision petitioners contended that they are running only Jewellery shop and Textile shop in this property under the name and style of Maharaja Jewellery and Maharaja Silk House. Ex.R.1 is the Invitation printed for the inauguration of the Jewellery shop. And only on the instructions of the landlord they have put up wall of 6 feet height and 4 feet length in the verandah near the access to the staircase.

.2. Learned Rent Controller found that the revision petitioners have raised the wall without the knowledge and consent of the landlord and carried out structural alteration regarding door, window and almirah, and this constituted acts of waste. And by running Pawn-broker’s shop in the demised premises revision petitioners are using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out. So he allowed the application and granted two months’ time to the tenants to vacate the premises. There upon the tenants preferred R.C.A.No.5 of 1991 before the Appellate Authority-Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai, with no success. And these orders are challenged in this revision petition.

.3. Regarding the claim of the landlord under Section 10(2) (ii) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners is two fold. First he submits that there is no express bar in Ex.P.1 lease deed in carrying on Pawn-broker’s business in the disputed premises. And secondly no such business is being carried on in the said premises. The relevant parts of Ex.P.1 read as under: From this learned counsel for the revision petitioner wants to infer that the expression occurring herein enables the tenants to run any other business in addition to the three express trades namely Textiles, Jewellery and Medicals. Provash Chandra Dalui v. Biswanath Banarjee (A.I.R.1989 S.C. 1834) has laid down that the best interpretation of a contract is made from the context. Every contract is to be construed with reference to its object and the whole of its terms. The whole context must be considered to ascertain the intention of the parties. It is an accepted principle of construction that the sense and meaning of the parties in any particular part of instrument may be collected ‘exantecedentibus to consequentibus’ every part of it may be brought into action in order to collect from the whole one uniform and consistent sence, if it is possible. In construing a contract the Court must look at the words used in the co