The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will dismiss an eviction petition if the grounds for eviction are not substantiated, and will confirm eviction if the grounds are proven.

1. The tenant Gowtham Chand, in respect of the petition premises viz., a non-residential portion with an extent of 172 sq.ft on the ground floor in the building bearing Door No.2A, Sivaprakasam Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, was sought to be evicted by his landlord G.S.Chandrapushpa by filing R.C.O.P.No.1853 of 1998 under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and 10 (2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the grounds of: 1) Willful default in payment of rent; 2) Acts of waste as are likely to materially impair the value and utility of the building; and 3) Acts of nuisance to the occupants of the other portions of the same building. The said eviction petition was taken on file by the Rent Controller (X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) as R.C.O.P.No.1853 of 1998. Another petition for eviction was filed as R.C.O.P.No.1854 of 1998 before the very same Rent Controller for evicting the tenant under Section 10(2)(ii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act alleging that he had unauthorizedly sub-let the premises to one Navin Kumar.

2. R.C.O.P.No.1853 of 1998 was resisted by Gowtham Chand (the tenant) contending that he had not committed any default in payment of rent, much less willful default and that on the other hand, a false averment had been made in order to evict him so as to enable the landlord to let out the petition premises for an enhanced rent and to get higher advance and also pagadi. It was also contended therein that Navin Kumar was the nephew of Gowtham Chand and the said Navin Kumar was making payment of rent to the landlord. Regarding the prayer for eviction on the ground of acts of waste, it was contended that since the father of Navin Kumar (brother of Gowtham Chand) was murdered in the demised premises, for safety purposes, he was compelled to erect an iron grill at the entrance of the demised shop and erect an iron gate after obtaining permission from the landlord; that the said act would not amount to act of waste as contemplated under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and that on the other hand, the said act was sought to be projected as a ground for eviction because the unjust demand of the landlord for enhancing the monthly rent from Rs.800/ to Rs.2000/-was not acceded to. Regarding the allegation of nuisance, he had contended that by erecting the iron grill and putting a gate, no hardship or inconvenience was caused to the other tenants.

3. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller, allowed the petition R.C.O.P.No.1853 of 1998 in part in respect of the prayer for eviction on the ground of willful default alone and negatived the prayer for eviction in respect of other prayers, namely eviction on the ground of acts of waste and nuisance. As against the said order of eviction dated 26.07.2002 made in R.C.O.P.No.1853 of 2003, directing eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.831 of 2002.

4. The other eviction petition R.C.O.P.No.1854 of 1998 was resisted by the tenant denying the allegation of unauthorized subletting made by the landlord in the eviction petition and contending that the alleged sub-tenant Navin Kumar was none other than the nephew (brother's son) of Gowtham Chand, the tenant; that in view of the relationship between Gowtham Chand and Navin Kumar as paternal uncle and nephew, the rent was regularly paid by Navin Kumar; that previously Manak Chand, the father of Navin Kumar, was looking after Gowtham Chand's business in the petition premises and after the demise of Manak Chand, his son Navin Kumar was looking after the family business and hence, the same would not amount to subletting, much less unauthorized subletting and that in the light of the fact that for about 5 years prior to the filing of the R.C.O.P, rent was paid by Navin Kumar for which no objection was raised by the landlord and o