Concurrent findings of authorities below not based on evidence.

1. This revision is by the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 1987, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Karur.. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has directed the petitioner to vacate the demised premises on the ground that he has committed acts of waste, which have materially impaired the value and utility of the building.

2. In the eviction petition, in paragraph 10, the original landlady Michael Ammal has said that the tenant, petitioner herein, has made some alterations without permission and put the building into a different user and also committed acts of waste which have materially impaired the value and utility of the building and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on that ground.

3. The said allegation is answered in paragraph 4 of the counter wherein the tenant has said that he has not made use of the building for any other purpose, nor has he committed any acts of waste. He has also said that he has not done any act which is likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. The allegation that he has committed acts of waste is also denied.

4. During trial, the Rent Controller, on the application of the respondent herein, deputed a Commissioner to file a report. The Commissioner has filed a report and also a supplemental report. He has also given a plan of the building and the so called changes that were alleged to have been effected by the tenant. By way of oral evidence, the agent of the landlady was examined as P.W.1. As against the oral evidence of P.W.I, petitioner (tenant) examined himself as R.W.1 and denied having committed any act of waste and also the alterations which were alleged to have materially impaired the value and utility of the building.

5. On the above evidence, the Rent Controller held that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground that the construction put up by him was without the consent of the landlady, and because of the construction, the landlady is put to difficulties. Against that Order, an appeal was preferred by the tenant, which also met with failure. It is the concurrent orders of the Authorities below that are challenged in this revision.

6. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlady died, and her legal representatives were impleaded. Those legal representatives are the respondents herein.

7. Under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited, and it is entitled to interfere only if the finding is illegal, improper or irregular. But, at the same time, if a finding is entered without taking into consideration the statutory provisions and to arrive at a finding for which there is no evidence at all, it cannot be doubted that such findings are perverse. If, on the basis of the available evidence, no reasonable man could arrive at such a finding, this court, in exercising the power under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act, is entitled to interfere with such finding.

8. With the above introduction regarding the power of this court under Sect.25 of the Act, let us consider how far the Authorities below were justified in ordering eviction.

9. Sec.l0(2)(iii) of the Act says mat the tenant is liable to be evicted if he has committed or caused to be committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. The burden of proof is on the landlord to show that the unauthorised act of the tenant has caused damage to the building and such damage has materially impaired the value or utility. (Italics Supplied)

10. The property from which the tenant is sought to be evicted is described in the Schedule thus:

“Karur, R.D., West Karur Sub R.D., Karur Taluk, Karur Municipal Town, 1st Ward, 7th Division, Brahmatheertham Road (Lakshmipuram) within the following four boundaries:

On the south of the house of Chinnasamy Iyer;

On the west of north south road;

On the north of the house of Arokkiasamy Mudaliar, and

On the ea