Landlord held entitled for order of eviction.

The landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, whieh is directed against the order of the Revenue Court, Tiruturai-poondi in P. No. 94 of 1981, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein praying for an order of eviction against the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of four items of properties in Survey Nos. 278/6, 278/5, 297/2-A and 278/3, totalling to 4 acres and 43 cents and these lands had been leased out to the respondent herein for purposes of cultivation of paddy, subject to payment of rent at 67½ kalams of paddy and an additional rent of 2 kalams per man for the second crop. According to the case of the petitioner, the lands are nanja lands irrigated by river water and that the lands had to be used only for agricultural purpose, but that contrary to this, the respondent had dug out a pond in a portion of the property leased and has also put up a samadhi for a cow and this, according to the petitioner, resulted in the conversion of nanja land into punja land. In addition, the petitioner also put forth the plea that the respondent had raised coconut trees in the land leased out for cultivation of paddy and had misused the land leased out to him and had also used the lands for non-agricultural purposes resulting in injury to the lands and also reduction in its value. A notice was sent by the petitioner demanding surrender of possession of the lands, but the respondent did not surrender the properties but had sent a reply containing false statements that these acts attributed to the respondent were done with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that the stand taken by the respondent in his reply notice was false and unsustainable and that he had no right whatever to use the lauds for a different purpose and also cause injury to the leasehold property by his own acts and on these grounds prayed for an order of eviction against the respondent herein.

2. In his counter, the respondent stated that there was not enough facility for kalam and, therefore, with the permission of the petitioner, a part of the lands leased adjoining the manaicut of the respondent was converted into a kalam and used as such. The respondent also stated that the petitioner suggested that coconut cultivation may be done in the ridges and that only with his permission, coconut trees had been reared in the ridges. The respondent admitted the digging of a pond in the lands leased out to him and stated that with the earth made available thereby, the kalam had been formed and that the water in the pond wag being used for the purpose of irrigating the coconut trees. The respondent claimed that the provision for a kalam and the raising of coconut trees were agricultural operations and they cannot be considered to be acts injurious to the land leased. The burying of a dead cow in a portion of the lands was admitted. But, the respondent denied the putting up of any samadhi over that place. The respondent refuted the claim of the petitioner that he had used the lands for non-agricultural and (non-horticultural purposes and that he has committed acts destructive of or injurious to the lands.

3. Before the Revenue Court, the petitioner examined himself as P. W., 1 and a neighbouring landowner, as P. W. 2, and marked Exhibits P-1 and P-2, copies of the notices issued by the petitioner and the reply for that from the respondent. The wife of the respondent was examined as R. W. 1, and Exhibits R-l and R-2 were relied on his behalf. With a view to ascertain the physical features and the condition on ground of the properties leased out to the respondent, the petitioner prayed for the appointment of a Commissioner and the Revenue Court deputed the Revenue Inspector of Thiruturaipoondi to inspect the lands in question and also send a detailed report. On a purported consideration of the evidence, the Revenue Court found that the coconut trees were planted with the knowledge and permiss