No interference with the concurrent findings of court below required.

1. Shenbagam Lorry Service, represented by its partner M.Mathivanan, the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller, Mannargudi, is the revision petitioner.

2. The eviction was sought for by the respondents herein on the ground that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for two months, viz., November and December, 1986 at the rate of Rs.225 per month. There is also another ground that the tenant/petitioner committed the acts of waste which have reduced the value and utility of the building permanently.

3. The said allegations were seriously opposed by the Revision petitioner. In the counter statement, the petitioner stated that they have been running the business of lorry agency for about 12 years, that immediately after taking the lease of the property, the petitioner has put up temporary thatched shed in front of the vacant space to park lorries, that the said shed has been there for about 12 years, that the landlords did not object to it and that the tenant did not obstruct the passage of the landlords, as there is no backyard for landlords’ use.

4. In the counter, the tenant also denied having committed any act of waste. He further denied that there is default in the payment of rents. According to him, even assuming that there is rental arrears, in the lease deed, there is a stipulation for collection of interest at 12 per cent per annum for defaulted rent and as such, the ground of eviction, namely, wilful default as well as the act of waste is not maintainable legally.

5. The Rent Controller, as per the order dated 18.2.1988, held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted on two grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) the act of waste. The matter was taken up in appeal by the tenant in R.C.A.No.22 of 1993 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Nagapattinam. The appellate authority after hearing the counsel for the parties, confirmed these two findings and the order of eviction. The propriety of the orders of the authorities below is challenged in this revision.

6. Let me first take into consideration the contention put forward by Mr.Subramaniam, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner herein, that the landlord has not substantiated his case that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of act of waste.

7. Before going into the deposition, the averments in the petition with reference to the act of waste could be extracted. In para 4 of the petition in R.C.O.P. it is stated as follows:

“One of the conditions in the rent deed is that the respondent should not put up any new structure in the demised premises without the landlords’ written consent and knowledge. While so, taking advantage of the fact that the petitioners are living in a different village, the respondent has in or about September, 1986 put a pucca shed in the vacant space comprised in the demised portion thereby clearly and expressly violating one of the conditions of the tenancy and also completely obstructing the passage of the petitioners to the backyard of the premises. The respondent is thus clearly guilty of act of waste and on this ground also he is liable to be evicted.”

8. The said allegation made by the landlord is denied by the tenant in the counter. In the chief-examination of P.W.1, one of the respondents herein, he would state as follows:

"TAMIL"

9. This is the only evidence regarding the acts of waste. On behalf of the tenant, one Murugaiya Pillai, Manager of the tenant-lorry transport, was examined who would state that there is a ‘kottagai’ in the vacant space. However, he would state that the said thatched shed was constructed as early as 1974. (i.e.) 13 years before when the premises was handed over to the tenant while leasing out the property. He also denied having disturbed enjoyment of the landlord by putting up thatched shed in the vacant space. Both in the counter and in the evidence, it is stated that th