Written consent from landlords is essential for any change in user of the demised premises, as per Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2011 passed in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court), Tirunelveli, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010 passed in R.C.O.P.No.105 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court), Tirunelveli.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil

Revision Petition would run thus:

(i) The respondents/landlords leased out the demised premises in favour of the revision petitioners/tenants for running a Xerox shop. But, according to the respondents/landlords, there was change in user of the building by using the said building for running a Parotta stall. One other ground for eviction is committing of nuisance by the tenants in the demised premises. The said petition was resisted by the revision petitioners/tenants by filing the counter affidavit.

(ii) Up went the trial, during which P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked on the side of the landlords and R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked on the side of the tenants.

(iii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of change in user, but rejected the ground of nuisance.

(iv) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the revision petitioners/tenants filed the appeal for nothing but to be dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller.

4. Challenging and impugning the orders of both the fora below, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants would pyramid his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

No doubt, at the initial stage, the tenants agreed to take the demised premises for running a Xerox shop, but not even for a single day, such Xerox shop was run because of want of electricity. Hence, to the knowledge and with the consent of the landlords, a Parotta stall was started and it is being run. Both the fora below fell into error in not appreciating the true facts and in such a case, those orders are liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, in a bid to slap down and torpedo the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners/tenants, the learned Counsel for the respondents/landlords would advance his arguments thus:

In the pre-litigation reply notice sent by the tenants in response to the landlords' notice, there was a supine admission to the effect that the tenants took on lease the demised premises from the landlords for running a Xerox shop, however, they proceeded to give certain explanation for running a Parotta stall in the demised premises. Absolutely, there is no written consent as contemplated under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for change in user of the building by the tenants. Hence, both the fora below were justified in ordering eviction, warranting no interference in revision.

7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by both the fora below in ordering eviction on the ground of change in user and that too, in the wake of non-availability of the written consent given by the landlords to the tenants?

The Point:

8. At the outset itself, I would like to refer to the decision of this Court in R.Joseph v. K.Balaji reported in (2010) 7 MLJ 776.

9. A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid precedent would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that this Court consistently without any variations in the view taken, held that unless there is any written consent obtained by the tenants from the landlords for change in user, the tenants cannot simply plead implied consent, etc.

10. Here, it is quite obvious and axiomatic that there is no written consent obtained by the tenants f