Wilful default of creating nuisance.

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Madras, in H.R.C.No.2365 of 1951, and confirmed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H.R.A.No.541 of 1951.

The facts of this case can be easily followed if we take on hand the blue-print plan annexed to this judgment for reference.

The premises No.6, Samudra Mudali Street, P.T., Madras, belongs to the Tawker Charities. The petitioner before us Bhogilal M. Davey has been occupying a major portion of the premises while the respondent S.R. Subramania Ayyar has been occupying a room in the back-portion of the premises. The Managing Trustee of the Charities applied to the High Court for sanction to grant a lease to the petitioner of the entire premises for a period of thirty years. The High Court by its order permitted the grant of the lease to the petitioner for a period of 25 years on his investing a sum of Rs.8,756 for effecting improvements to the premises under the supervision of the Trustee and on his agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.65. On 24th February, 1951, the Managing Trustee accordingly executed the lease deed Ex.P-2 in favour of the petitioner herein, in which it was provided that the appellant was to spend no less than Rs.8,000 within a period of one year for the improvement of this building. The last covenant in the lease was that the existing lease on the property shall be deemed to be determined as and from the date, of Ex.P-2 and the petitioner himself should take all such steps as may be necessary and permissible in law to evict the tenant in the back-portion of the premises. On 25th February, 1951, the Managing Trustee gave notice to the respondent calling upon him to attorn to the petitioner as a direct tenant from 1st March, 1951. The respondent has been called upon to vacate the portion by the end of March, 1951, both by the Managing Trustee as well as by the petitioner. The respondent has refused to vacate and also, instead of paying the rents to the petitioner, has been sending money orders to the Managing Trustee which have been refused and what is more he has been preparing and selling iddlis in that portion. It is common ground that the portion occupied by this respondent is dilapidated and has got to be reconstructed and in fact the reconstruction of which was the motivating factor for the Trust to give a long-term lease to the petitioner.

Therefore, this petitioner has been seeking the eviction of this respondent on Pour grounds, viz., (1) that the petitioner is a landlord within the meaning of section 2 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; (2) that this landlord petitioner requires this petition disputed portion for his own occupation; (3) that the respondent tenant failed to pay or tender rent from 1st March, 1951, and has committed wilful default; and (4) that the tenant has been guilty of using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, viz., instead of using it as a residence he has been using it for preparing iddlis and vending them

Both the courts below, though for differing reasons, rejected the application for eviction and hence this Civil Revision Petition.

Point 1:-The first point to be considered is whether the petitioner is a landlord within the meaning of section 2 of the Act as he alleges or is not a landlord as alleged by the respondent. I need not point out that if the former is the case we can proceed with this petition and if the latter is the case the petition has to be rejected outright. It is quite true that till the High Court approved the proposal of the Managing Trustee to lease out the entire property for 25 years to the petitioner, the respondent was the lessee of a small portion and the petitioner was the lessee of the rest of the premises in question. Both of them were monthly leases terminable under the Transfer of Property Act by 15 days’ notice ending with the month of tenancy. On the execution of the lease deed Ex. P-2 th