- (1.)ANIMADVERTING upon the common judgment and decrees dated 19.12.2005 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Coimbatore, in R.C.A.Nos.70 and 71 of 2005 in confirming the fair and decreetal orders dated 05.04.2005 passed by the learned District Munsif (Rent Controller), Coimbatore in RCOP Nos.102 and 111 of 2003, these two civil revision petitions are focused by the landlords.
(2.)BROADLY but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two revision petitions would run thus: (i) The revision petitioners/landlords filed the RCOP No.111 of 2003 seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants, initially on the grounds of sub-letting and change of user by invoking Sections 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and subsequently got the RCOP amended by incorporating the additional two grounds, viz., default in payment of rent and act of waste by invoking Sections 10(2)(i), and 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The matter was contested. (ii) Whereas the respondents/tenants filed the RCOP No.102 of 2003 under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rent in court. (iii) During the joint enquiry, on the side of the revision petitioners/landlords, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P30 were marked. On the side of the respondents/tenants, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked and the Court documents Exs.C1 and C2 also were marked. (iv) Ultimately, the Rent controller allowed the RCOP No.102 of 2003 filed by the tenants for deposit of rent in court and dismissed the RCOP No.111 of 2003 filed by the landlords rejecting all the grounds. (v) Aggrieved by the orders of the Rent Controller, the landlords preferred appeals in RCA.Nos.70 and 71 of 2005, for nothing but to be dismissed. (vi) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the courts below, these two revisions have been filed by the landlords more on less on similar grounds.
Heard both sides.

The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus: (i) Both the courts below fell into error in ignoring the factum of the premises having been sub-let by the original partners, viz., B.Md.Kassim and Mrs.Rahmath Kasim (R2 and R3 herein) in favour of two persons viz., Kandasamy and Shanmugam (R5 and R6 herein). Even as per Ex.R7, a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was paid by the said Kandasamy and Shanmugam in favour of the original partners, which demonstrates that they sold their business in favour of the aforesaid two persons and thereby it tant-amounts to sub-letting the demised premises. But both the courts below failed to address themselves to the relevant facts and apply the correct proposition of law and accordingly, their findings are perverse. (ii) The tenant himself invoked Section 8(5) of the Act and sought permission to deposit the rent. Whereupon, the Rent Controller ordered that petition with a direction that a sum of Rs.35,125/- per month should be paid, taking into account the subsequent development to the effect that the landlords filed the RCOP for fixation of rent and in that the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.35,125/- per month. In fact as against such fixation of fair rent, appeal was filed only by the landlords for enhancement of the rent fixed by the Rent Controller. In the meantime, the tenants accepted the fixation of fair rent i.e.,Rs.35,125/- fixed as fair rent per month and for about 10 months, they were also depositing the same in court. Subsequently, they once again committed default in paying the rent and that they were not even regular in paying the sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as earlier agreed between the parties. (iii) As such, there were ups and downs in the quantum of rent paid by them in addition to they being irregular in making payment of the same and it clearly amounted to willful default. But the courts below failed to take into account those features and committed error in holding as though there was no willful default in paying rent by the tenants. The Appellate authority assumed as though there were huge advance amounts available with the landlords and that consequently, no default in payment of rent could be attributed as against the tenants. Without giving any calculation as to how much alleged amount of advance was adjusted towards arrears of rent etc. and that too in the absence of when there were no pleadings relating to advance and adjustment of advance, the appellate authority decided erroneously the appeal. (iv) Even though the partnership was earlier doing admittedly the business in fancy goods, subsequently, they unauthorizedly switched over to doing business in pillows and beds and that amounts to change in user warranting interference of this court. (v) But the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in their findings, felt that there was no change in user. (vi) The tenants also unauthorizedly and highhandedly removed the very stair case to the mezzanine floor in the demised premises and it was a gross act of waste, which lowered the value as well as the utility of the building. But the courts below simply held as though removal of the stair case in no way lowered the value of the building or dwarfed the utility of the building. As such, the findings of both the courts below are totally against the well established principles of law. (vii) The learned senior counsel for the landlords also would submit that even pending litigation the rents were not paid regularly and that would exemplify the conduct of the tenant in committing default in payment of rent. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel for the landlords would pray for allowing both these revisions.

(3.)PER contra, in an attempt to torpedo and pulverise the arguments/contentions as put forth on the side of the landlords, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) It is an admitted fact that the landlords even though very much relied on the original lease agreement, which emerged between the landlords and the tenants, they had not chosen to file the same before the court and mark it due to the obvious reasons that had they produced the original lease agreement then that would have exposed the landlords. (b) It is an admitted fact that the landlords and the tenant viz., the original partnership under the name and style M/s.Tip Top Southern Bonanza agreed that the tenant could change it partners and the only requirement was that the landlords should be put on notice of such change and no prior permission or consent is contemplated under the lease agreement. When such is the position, mere change in the constitution of the partnership by new partners entering into the partnership and the old partners retiring, would not amount to sub-letting. Mere payment of Rs.20 lakhs by the new partners in favour of the old partners would not enure to the benefit of the landlords to argue that there was sale of the business itself. (c) From 1976 onwards, the original partners viz., R2 and R3 started the business in fancy goods and they had been doing it for several decades and only in recognition of their good effort and by way of settling their accounts the said sum was paid and not by way of purchasing their business by the new partners. In such a case, the arguments as put forth on the side of the landlords are untenable. (d) Even though admittedly, the learned senior counsel for the landlords might try to project as though there was default in payment of rent by the tenants, there is nothing to display and demonstrate that there was wilful default in paying the earlier agreed rent of Rs.8,000/- per month. (e) During the pendency of the RCOP No.111 of 2003, even though the additional ground of willful default was got incorporated by the landlords, actually there was no wilful default at all. In fact, in the typed set of papers, the calculation details relating to payment of rent into court do not reflect the true picture and there are also mistakes in it. However, the tenants did not commit any default at all in paying the rents anterior to the filing of the RCOP. After the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller, the tenants no doubt accepted the fair rent fixed in a sum of Rs.35,125/- per month and for about 10 months they paid the said fair rent also. But it was the landlords who preferred RCA for enhancement and ultimately, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remitted the matter back to him and thereafter the tenant stopped paying the higher rent of Rs.35,125/- per month. (f) As against the order of the Appellate authority in that RCA a separate revision in CRP NPD No.888 of 2006 was filed and in that this court set aside the order of the Appellate authority and remitted the matter back to him for considering it by himself afresh. Hence, in such a case, the very non-payment of rent in this process cannot be construed as willful default at all. Both the courts below taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter, held that there was no willful default. (g) The appellate authority taking into account the evidentiary aspect of the matter held that huge amount was available with the landlords towards advance and in such a case, it would not lie in the mouth of the landlords to raise their accusative finger as though there was willful default. As such, the finding of the Appellate authority that there was no willful default warrants no interference. (h) Regarding change of user is concerned, the original agreement which the landlords suppressed would clearly contemplate that the tenants were permitted to use the premises for conducting business and there was no restriction at all. In such a case, any business, which is not illegal can be undertaken by the tenants. (i) Here, originally, the tenant M/s.Tip Top Southern Bonanza was carrying on business in fancy goods and subsequently, they switched over to the business of selling pillows and beds, which are not at all in any way injurious to the premises or contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and as such the findings given by both the courts below warrants, no interference. (j) Regarding the plea of act of waste is concerned, both the courts below placing reliance on the oral and the documentary evidence clearly held that mere removal of the stair case and that too, which was in a dilapidated condition, would not amount to causing loss in the value of the building or lessening the utility of the building and accordingly the said findings of the courts below also warrant no interference by this court. (k) The power of the revisional court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is limited and unless there is any perversity or illegality in passing the orders by the courts below, the question of interfering in the revision would not arise. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the tenants pray for dismissal of both the revisions.
The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the findings given by the courts below that there was no sub-letting; that there was no willful default; that there was no change of user and that there was no act of waste on the part of the tenants, warranting interference by this court in these revisions" IN RE SUB-LETTING: