T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner. It is common ground that the petitioner secured the suit premises on lease for the purpose of carrying on the business of hoteliering and the petitioner for the purposes of his trade was, in occupation of the property adjacent to the suit premises as well. The landlord found that the tenant had drilled a hole 3" in diameter in the terrace portion of the main building and also removed a portion of the parapet wall on the terrace of the building to a length 2' x 3' or 3 1/2. Characterising such acts of the tenant as acts of waste and also on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent, the respondent filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking for the eviction of the petitioner as tenant in the suit premises. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court found that there was no wilful default and the acts excerpted above cannot be characterised as acts of waste within the meaning of Section 10 (2) (iii) of Act XVIII of 1960. The learned District Judge, ' however, on revision under Section 25 of the said Act, differed from the findings of the tribun