The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of previous written consent from the landlord for change of user, as well as the genuineness of the landlord's requirement for owner's occupation.

Inveighing the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2009 passed by the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A.No.70 of 2007 modifying the fair and decreetal order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Controller) in RCOP No.1352 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

1. The respondents herein filed RCOP seeking eviction on the following grounds:

1. different user

2. act of waste

3. act of nuisance and

4. owner’s occupation

by invoking Sections 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii), 10(2)(v) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The matter was contested.

2. During enquiry, on the side of the landlords, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-13 were marked. On the side of the tenant, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits R-1 to R-11 were marked.

3. Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on all grounds. Being aggrieved by the same, appeal was filed before the appellate authority. After hearing both sides, the Appellate Authority rejected the ground of waste invoked by the landlords and upheld the other three grounds and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller to that much extent and accordingly, allowed the appeal partly.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of both the Courts below, the tenant preferred this revision on various grounds.

The learned counsel for the tenant placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

a) Ignoring the factum of the erstwhile landlord having given consent for the tenant to switch over the user from chit fund business to one of conducting prayer in the said non residential building, both the Courts below simply upheld the contention of the landlords as though there was unauthorised change of user of the said demised premises.

b) The tenant came to occupy the demised premises as early as in the year 1978. Undoubtedly, he was carrying on chit fund business till 1988 and thereafter with the consent of the then landlord the tenant effected change of user as stated supra.

c) Only during October 2002, the present landlord purchased the demised premises from the erstwhile landlord and he also continued to receive rent impliedly consenting for the tenant to carry on with his Evangelical service in the demised premises.

d) In fact, the original tenant was Joseph, the revision petitioner herein. Subsequently, the said Joseph created a public religious trust comprised of himself and other persons and they were doing Evangelical service so to say, prayer meetings in the demised premises on Sundays. But it was not to the taste of the present landlord and he only as an after-though started raising objections relating to the use of the building for the Evalangelical purpose.

As such, both the Courts below failed to take into account the implied consent of the erstwhile landlord in permitting the tenant to use the building for Evangelical purpose.

e) Once the erstwhile landlord himself virtually permitted the tenant to the change of user of the building, the present landlord who happened to be the purchaser of the building cannot claim to have locus standi to invoke the ground relating to change of user.

f) There is no consistency in the pleading relating to the ground of owner’s occupation. In the RCOP it is found staged that he was doing some business in a particular place in Thoppu Street but while adducing evidence he would state some other place and hence he wanted to vacate the rented premises and occupy the demised premises etc.

g) The evidence relating to to nuisance is murky and absolutely there is nothing to show that such conduct of Evangelical service/ prayer meetings in the said