Point of Law: Tenant had admitted in counter statement that he is using building both for residential and non-residential purpose ever since inception of tenancy and there was no question of conversion in user of building at a later stage. In view of admission made by tenant case of landlord that building is used for a different purpose stands proved

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended Act 1 of 1960), prayed to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 21.01.2020 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Mayiladuthurai in confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2014 dated 07.12.2018 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Sirkali and dismiss the RCOP by allowing this CRP.)

1. The petitioner herein is the respondent / tenant in RCOP.No.5 of 2014 which was on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Sirkali. R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2014 had been filed seeking eviction on the grounds under Section 10(2)(ii)(a), (ii)(b), 2(iii), 10(3)(a)(i), 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended Act, 1 of 1960 (The Act)

2. The Rent Control Petition was filed with respect to a building in old Door No.97A and new Door No.97/C/2 in North Car Street, Kasba Sirkali, Mailaduthurai, which had been leased out for non-residential purpose under an agreement dated 02.02.2011. The rent was Rs.25,000/- per month and an additional sum of Rs.25,000 per month was payable towards amenities. As stated, the Rent Control Petition had been filed practically under most of the provisions under the Act claiming that the respondent / tenant had put it to different use, had sublet it, had committed acts of waste and also that it was required for owner’s occupation and also that the building had to be demolished and reconstructed.

3. Counter was filed and the parties went to trial. An order was passed in the Rent Control Petition on 07.12.2018. Eviction was granted on the grounds that it had been put to different use under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act and also that the building requires to be demolished and reconstructed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

4. It was specifically observed in the course of the order that the respondent / tenant had actually put the rear portion of the house to residential use and had also admitted that it had been so put to residential use even in the counter to the Rent Control Petition. It was however claimed that it had been put to residential use only after permission had been obtained from the landlord. The learned Rent Controller however held that this particular pleading of the respondent had not been proved.

5. A Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed before the Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Court), Mayiladuthruai. By order dated 21.01.2020 the ground under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act was upheld and the ground under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act was rejected.

6. In the order of the Appellate Authority, it had been again stated that the fact that the respondent / tenant had put the building for different use for residential purpose was admitted even in the counter. It was also pointed out that the respondent in his evidence had admitted during cross-examination also that the purpose of tenancy was only for non-residential purposes and not for residential purpose. He had also admitted during cross-examination that he was residing at the rear portion of the building. Eviction was therefore confirmed under the said provision.

7. Questioning the rationale behind both the orders, the present Revision Petition had been filed.

8. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Duraisamy, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the orders of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority by stating that there has been no finding that by putting the property to residential use, the value or the utility of the building has decreased. The learned counsel also pointed out that the property is actually situated in a residential area and the landlord had not suffered by the fact that the tenant had used the rear portion for his