For doing other business instead of the specified business, tenant held liable to be evicted.

1. Heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vasudhevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The landlady of a premises situated in Kumbakonam is the revision petitioner in this Court. She filed R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kumbakonam seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant on two grounds, namely, demolition and reconstruction and change of user. The Rent Controller found against the landlady on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. However, an order of eviction on the ground of change of user was passed. The tenant challenged that order in an appeal in R.C.A.No.5 of 1996 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kumbakonam. The appellate authority also concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller in non-suiting the landlady on the ground of the demolition and reconstruction. On the other ground on which eviction was ordered, the appellate authority took a different view and allowed the appeal. Hence, the present revision by the landlady.

2. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that on the facts found by the Rent Controller as well as by the appellate authority the only order that can be passed against the tenant is an order of eviction. The reasons given by the appellate authority that since the tenant is using only a negligible portion of the building demised to him for a different purpose other than that for which it was rented out to him, would not be a ground in the eye of law to refuse to pass an order of eviction. His further contention is that the new business, which he is shown to have started must be akin to or an allied or ancillary to the business, which the tenant was already carrying on. If the business is not coming within the phraseology referred to earlier, then the tenant has to be found guilty of using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased.

3. Opposing this argument, Mr.R.Vasudhevan, learned counsel for the tenant would contend that though at the inception of tenancy the building was rented out for the purpose of carrying on business in plastics, yet, later on he, having lost considerably in that business, started a business in a portion of the very same building in cut piece cloth and that too, with the consent of the landlady. It is his case that the tenant is not disputing that he carries on two types of businesses in the building, namely in plastic ware and in cut piece cloth. His argument is since, as found by the appellate authority, the new business was carried on in a negligible portion, the tenant cannot be evicted on the ground of different user.

4. The case of the landlady, both in the rent control petition as well as in her oral evidence, before the Rent Controller is that the tenancy at the commencement was for a specific purpose of carrying on business in plastic ware only. The tenant, nowhere denied the statement so positively made in the rent control petition. P.W.1, in her oral evidence in chief, had stated that at the inception the building was let out only for carrying on business in the name of “New Plastic Wares’. It is no doubt true that in the rent control petition the landlady asserted that a copy of the tenancy agreement is available with her. But however the said agreement was not exhibited before any of the authorities under the Act. She had stated in her evidence in cross that the earlier agreement of tenancy between the parties was renewed by another agreement dated 22.3.1991 and that agreement is also with her. Yet, none of the agreements, namely, either the original agreement or the renewal agreement was placed before the Court. However it is clear not only from the pleading but also from the oral evidence of P.W.1 that at the inception of the tenancy, it was for a specific purpose of the tenant carrying on business in plastic ware. It may not be out of place in this context to reiterate that the tenant had not