T. Venkatadri, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings before the Rent Controller, Madras. The petitioner is a tenant of a non-residential building. The respondent originally filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he committed acts of waste on the property and by engaging masons and other persons he had dug the flooring of the shop to the depth of about three feet and removed the earth ; he had also demolished the front wall to the height of about three feet from the ground level and lowered the doorway. Therefore the landlord prayed that an order of eviction might be passed against the tenant directing him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the shop bearing No. 683, Triplicane High Road, Triplican e, Madras. This petition was resisted by the petitioner-tenant that he did not commit acts of waste which had impaired the value of the property and that, on the other hand, he had effected certain repairs which were long overdue and which had very much enhanced the appearance and value of the property. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial. Evidence was adduced by examining the clerk of the respondent and the tenant examined himself. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant had committed acts of waste which had materially impaired the value or utility of the building. Therefore they ordered eviction. It is against this order of eviction that the tenant had preferred this Civil Revision Petition. I have gone through the evidence and the record as also the orders of the lower Courts. But I am not able to agree with the findings arrived at by the appellate authority. It is the duty of the Court to see whether there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the tenant has committed such acts of waste as to impair the value or utility of the building. In Govindaswami Naidu v. Pushnalammal : AIR1952Mad181 a Bench of this Court consisting of Rajamannar C.J., and Somasundaram J., has held that every act of waste on the part of a tenant will not entitle the landlord to obtain an order of eviction under Section 7(2)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, that it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that a demolition of any wall in a building must necessarily be deemed to be an act of waste which is likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building and that a finding on this point is a finding which must be based upon the particular facts as emerge from the evidence that is adduced. But in the present case sufficient evidence has not been placed before the Courts for coining to the conclusion whether the tenant has caused such damage as to impair materially the value or utility of the building. So in the interests of parties I remand the Appeal to the appellate authority giving opportunity both to the landlord and the tenant to adduce evidence, preferably an expert opinion, to enable the appellate authority to come to the conclusion whether the tenant has really caused damage as to impair materially the value or utility of the building. There will be no order as to costs.