Tenant using the premises for the purpose of godown when the same was let out for being used as shop.

Tenant in R.C.O.P. No.431 of 1981, on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town, originally filed the revision petition. Later she died and her legal representatives have been impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 7, in this revision.

2. Respondents herein filed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent, that the building is required by the landlords bona fide for own use and occupation, and on the further ground that the tenant was making use of the premises for a purpose other than the one which it was let out.

3. Tenant, in her counter, denied that she has committed default in paying the rent. She also disputed the claim of the landlords regarding the requirement of the premises for their own occupation. She said that the claim is only a pretext for eviction. Insofar as the allegation that the building is used for a different purpose, her contention was that herself and her husband and their children are doing a family business, and that the lease does not say that the building should be used only for a particular purpose. At any rate, a further contention was raised that the landlords have also acquiesced the user made by the revision petitioners. On the above grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.

4. Before the Rent Controller, evidence was adduced by the landlords by marking Exs.A-1 to A-10 and also by examining P.W. 1 on their side, R.W. 1 was examined on the side of the tenant. Exs.B-1 to B-12 were marked.

5. In this connection, it may also be noted that on the allegation that the tenant has sublet the building, another Rent Control Petition was filed as R.C.O.P. No.101 of 1987. That petition was also tried along with R.C.O.P. No.431 of 1981 and evidence was taken in this case. A Commissioner was also deputed, to note the physical features who filed Ex.C-1 report.

6. The Rent Control Court, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondents are not entitled to eviction on any of the grounds, and dismissed both the petitions.

7. Against the said decision, respondents filed R.C.A. No.126 of 1989 before the Appellate Authority, Madurai. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant has not committed wilful default. But in regard to other two grounds, i.e., the tenant is using the premises for a different purpose and the building is required bona fide for own use, those points were found in favour of the landlords, and eviction was ordered. It may be noted that as against the decision in R.C.O.P. No. 101 of 1987, the landlords did not file any appeal and that had become final.

8. It-is against the eviction order, the tenant has filed this revision, and on her death, her legal heirs are continuing the proceedings.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that in so far as the ground for eviction that the building is used for a different purpose, there is absolutely no material either in pleading or in evidence. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the only averment that is seen in paragraph 3 of the eviction petition is this:

"...Further, it is surprising that the respondent is putting to use the premises for a purpose other than agreed and used hitherto before.........“

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no pleading regarding the purpose of letting and how the purpose has now changed so as to make this allegation. He also brought to my notice the chief-examination of P.W.I wherein also there is no statement as to the purpose of letting and the use that is now being made. So, on the basis of these two statements, learned counsel for the petitioners wanted me to hold that the” finding of the Appellate Authority has to be reversed.

10. In this connection, it may also be noted that in the objection to the eviction petition, in paragraph 5, the tenant has said that herself, her husband and