Skip to content


Sha Suragmal Bhalechand Vs. Punamchand R. Shah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1967)2MLJ615
AppellantSha Suragmal Bhalechand
RespondentPunamchand R. Shah
Cases Referred and Patel Md. Siddique v. H.H. Prince of Arcot Endowment
Excerpt:
- - there were several acts of waste complained of in the petition filed before the rent controller......building must necessarily be deemed to be an act of waste which is likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. a finding on this point is a finding which must be based upon the particular facts as emerge from the evidence that is adduced.3. in the latter case, venkatadri, j., observed: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.4. bearing the above principles in mind, when the evidence let in this case has been examined, i have no hesitancy in holding that the act of the tenant amounts to an act of waste within the meaning of section 10 of act xviii of 1960. an act by which the load of an eighty-year old building is.....
Judgment:

T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner before me. This arises under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960). The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 10 of Act XVIII of 1960 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner committed such acts of waste which are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. There were several acts of waste complained of in the petition filed before the Rent Controller. The parties, however, have restricted their arguments before me by referring to one incident and act of the tenant, namely, removal of the wooden partition in the first floor and replacing it by pucca walls with no support for the walls on the ground floor. P.W. 3, an Engineer, who was examined, deposed that he found in the first floor one long wall and three cross-walls and that there is no support in the ground floor for these walls and that the new walls throw additional load to the building which is over 70 or 80 years old. Besides, the landlord gave evidence in support thereof. The petitioner did not examine any expert to countermand the evidence let in by the landlord. Both the Courts below found that the petitioner's acts do constitute acts of waste which would materially impair the value and utility of the building.

2. Mr. R. Vaidyanathan appearing for the petitioner, brought to my notice two decisions of our High Court, in Govindaswami Naidu v. Pushpalammal : AIR1952Mad181 , and Patel Md. Siddique v. H.H. Prince of Arcot Endowment : (1964)1MLJ97 . In the former case, Rajamannar, C.J., and Somasundaram, J., held, dealing with the relevant provision in the earlier Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1946:

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 Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 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. A finding on this point is a finding which must be based upon the particular facts as emerge from the evidence that is adduced.

3. In the latter case, Venkatadri, J., observed:

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.

4. Bearing the above principles in mind, when the evidence let in this case has been examined, I have no hesitancy in holding that the act of the tenant amounts to an act of waste within the meaning of Section 10 of Act XVIII of 1960. An act by which the load of an eighty-year old building is increased and such load consists of pucca walls in the first floor without any foundation to take them in the ground floor is a deliberate act of waste which would impair not only the value but also the utility of the building. There is also the evidence of P.W. 3 who speaks about such an act of the tenant. Section 10 of Act XVIII of 1960 is attracted if the act is likely to impair the utility or value of the building. A definite or reasonable prospect of such damage to the utility or value of the premises is enough. Of course, the conclusion to be arrived at on the available evidence should be just, reasonable and prudent. I have no doubt that in this case it is very high-handed of the tenant to have constructed walls without foundation in the first floor, and that too in an old building. This act is a deliberate act without warrant. I am not inclined to disturb the finding of fact of both the Courts below. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //