Tenant during business as per the lease agreement.

The above revision has been filed against the order of the appellate authority - Sub-Court, Coimbatore, exercising the powers under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) confirming the order of the Rent Controller - District Munsif, Coimbatore, dated 12. 1987 in R.C.O.P. No.71 of 1981.

2. The petitioner before this Court is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the premises in question. There is no dispute over the position that the petitioner became the tenant pursuant to the lease agreement dated 11. 1979 on a monthly rent of Rs.250 for non-residential purpose. On the ground that the lease was for the purpose of carrying on business in hotel and in disregard of the same, the petitioner- tenant is doing business by installing a lathe and obtaining three phase connection, the respondent- landlord has filed R.C.O.P. No.71 of 1981 under Sec.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act contending that the tenant is liable to be evicted for having used them premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out. The petitioner- tenant contended that the lease was not for the purpose of running a hotel, that though the tenant was running a hotel for sometime, thereupon he wanted to start a workshop for the use of his own and that the tenant cannot be accused of having put the leased premises into a different use, so as to attract liability under Sec. 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act.

3. On the above pleadings and claims, the Rent Controller tried the petition for eviction and by his order dated 12. 1987 ordered eviction granting three months’ time for vacating the premises holding that the lease in question must be considered to have been only for the purpose of running a hotel in view of the fact that prior to the induction of the petitioner as a tenant as also immediately thereafter, the portion in question was being used only for the purpose of running a hotel business and that, therefore, it should be considered that there had been a change of the purpose of the lease without the consent or permission of the landlord. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the learned appellate authority also confirmed the conclusions and findings of the learned Rent Controller and rejected the appeal R.C.A. No.20 of 1987 by his order dated 310. 1988. Hence, the above revision by the tenant.

4. Mr.Santhanagopalan, learned counsel for the tenant contended that the authorities below have committed a grave error in reading into the lease agreement a purpose unwarranted either on the nature of the agreement or the intention of the parties and that the petitioner could not be said to have violated Sec.l0(2)(ii)(b) of the Act and rendered himself liable to be evicted on that account. The learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord adopted the reasonings assigned by the authorities below in support of his contention and claimed that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the authorities below are in accordance with law and do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel on either side took me at great length through the orders of the authorities below as also the relevant documents and the oral evidence on record. My attention has been drawn to several judgments in support of the respective stand, of which I intend referring to some of the decisions relevant and directly on the issue for the consideration of the points raised before me in this revision.

6. In Ram Dayal v. Ram Charan Dass, (1981)1 R. C.J. 161, J. V. Gupta, J. as the learned Judge then was, had an occasion to deal with the claim of a landlord before the learned Judge seeking ejectment of a tenant from the shop on the ground of change of user under Sec.13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949, which is in pari materia with the provision under consideration in this case. That was a case wherein the r