The court reaffirmed that nuisance and different property usage can justify eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, solidifying the landlord's rights in such disputes.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been preferred as against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.03.2020 in R.C.A. No.817 of 2017 on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai filed against the order dated 08.11.2017 in R.C.O.P. No.910 of 2016 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner is the tenant and the deceased

1st respondent is the landlord. Before the Rent controller, the deceased 1st respondent landlord herein filed a petition for eviction under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. But the Rent Controller dismissed the claim under Section 10(2)(i) and allowed petitions under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(v) of the Act. Against which, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.817 of 2017. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. The short facts necessary to dispose this petition are as follows:- The petitioner is the tenant and he entered into lease agreement with the deceased 1st respondent landlord in respect of the property in the ground floor, shop portion facing the Pallappa Street, Triplicane. The property was leased out for cutting electrical switch board. The rent was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month and advance was paid at Rs.50,000/-. While so, the respondent herein has filed a petition for eviction on the grounds of wilful default, causing nuisance and different usage. Before the Trial Court, he was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. On the side of respondent herein, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the Trial Court dismissed the petition under Section 10(2)(i) and allowed the petition under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(v) of the Act and eviction order was passed. Against which, the tenant has preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.817 of 2017 and the same was also dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Against which, this civil revision petition is filed by the tenant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tenant would contend that the respondents have filed petition for eviction on the ground of willful default, different usage and causing nuisance. Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground of wilful default, but failed to consider the case of the petitioner that the respondent landlord has not proved that the shop was let out for some specific purpose and the same was used by the tenant for different occupation and caused nuisance. The witness examined by the respondent before the Rent Controller are not related to the suit property and not resided in the address of the schedule property and they are residing somewhere else. Therefore, their evidence cannot be looked into for the ground of nuisance. The Trial Court also failed to consider that as far as conversion of the schedule property is concerned, no such use of other use is done at all. Since the property was let out for cutting all sort of materials, cutting of metals will not amount as different use and occupation. The said aspects have not been considered by the Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the order passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the Rent Controller, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on both sides, fairly came to the conclusion that the premises was used for different purpose and the petitioner also caused nuisance and thereby, ordered for eviction. The respondent's side witnesses PW1 to PW4 have categorically deposed about the nuisance caused by the petitioner tenant and different usage of the property. Therefore, they proved the ground of different use of property and the nuisance caused by the petitioner. Therefore, the order passe