AMMASAI GOUNDER Vs. LAKSHMIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision has been filed against the order of the appellate authority - Sub-Court, Coimbatore, exercising the powers under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") confirming the order of the Rent Controller - District Munsif, Coimbatore, dated 12.2.1987 in R.C.O.P. No.71 of 1981.

(2.) THE petitioner before this Court is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the premises in question. THEre is no dispute over the position that the petitioner became the tenant pursuant to the lease agreement dated 2.11.1979 on a monthly rent of Rs.250 for non-residential purpose. On the ground that the lease was for the purpose of carrying on business in hotel and in disregard of the same, the petitioner- tenant is doing business by installing a lathe and obtaining three phase connection, the respondent- landlord has filed R.C.O.P. No.71 of 1981 under Sec.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act contending that the tenant is liable to be evicted for having used them premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out. THE petitioner- tenant contended that the lease was not for the purpose of running a hotel, that though the tenant was running a hotel for sometime, thereupon he wanted to start a workshop for the use of his own and that the tenant cannot be accused of having put the leased premises into a different use, so as to attract liability under Sec. 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act.

(3.) MR.Santhanagopalan, learned counsel for the tenant contended that the authorities below have committed a grave error in reading into the lease agreement a purpose unwarranted either on the nature of the agreement or the intention of the parties and that the petitioner could not be said to have violated Sec.l0(2)(ii)(b) of the Act and rendered himself liable to be evicted on that account. The learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord adopted the reasonings assigned by the authorities below in support of his contention and claimed that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the authorities below are in accordance with law and do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.