Fakkir Mohammed, J.
1. The tenant/respondent in R.G.O.P. No. 80 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein, who is the landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 80 of 1978 for eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein on three grounds under Sections 10 () (iii), 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (ii) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition was resisted by the petitioner herein stating that none of the grounds is real or true and that the petition should be dismissed. The learned Rent Controller found all the three grounds against the landlady and dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal by the landlady to the appellate authority, the appellate authority, while confirming the order of the Rent Controller on the ground of different user of the demised building, reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the grounds of act of waste and wilful default and ordered eviction of the petitioner herein. Hence this revision petition.
The contention of the landlady was that the tenant had broken open the wall dividing two rooms and installed a door-frame without the consent of the landlady, which has resulted in diminishing the strength of the wall, since there is upstairs in the building and has thus committed act of waste. The further contention was that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent for the period from May, 1976 for an amount of Rs. 1,200 by deducting the said amount towards the alleged expenses of repairs executed to the building without the consent of the landlady. The appellate authority has found that the demolition of the wall was done without the consent of the landlady and has amounted to an act of waste and as also found that the deduction of Rs. 1,200 towards alleged expenses of the repairs amounted to wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent.
2. As regards the ground of act of waste is concerned, it is not disputed that the tenant has not obtained the written consent of the landlady. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that after all the tenant has made an opening in the wall dividing two rooms for the purpose of easy access in using the ground-floor as a godown. There is no record to prove that the tenant obtained the consent of the landlady for making an opening in the wall, which had divided two rooms. The said act of making an opening in the main wall, which divides two rooms, without the consent of the landlady will certainly amount to an act of waste. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent herein in a storeyed building, like the demised building, making an opening in the wall will definitely weaken the strength of the wall and in the long run it will weaken the building. It has been held in Sha, Jetmull Genmul v. Gokuldas Jamunadass & Company : (1971)2MLJ224 , by this Court that the tenant should be held to have committed acts of waste within the mischief of Section 10(2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in a case where the tenant has not obtained the written Consent of the landlord even if the alteration made by the tenant may add to the utility of the building for some time, since it may cause serious damage to the building ultimately and in the long run. The finding of the appellate authority being one on facts, this Court sitting in revision, cannot set aside the finding of fact as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswami : AIR1980SC1253 .
3. So far as the next ground of wilful default is concerned, it is admitted that the tenant withheld Rs. 1,200 towards alleged execution of repairs to the building. The alleged execution of repairs to the building is nothing but whitewashing to the building according to the revision petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not obtain the written consent of the landlady before spending for whitewashing. The fact that the consent of the landlady is paramount for spending any portion of the rent towards execution of repairs to the demised building will be seen from the provision in the Rent Control Act to the effect that in case that the landlord is not willing to execute repairs to the building, the tenant should obtain the permission of the Rent Controller before spending any amount by way of repairs to the building. In fact, the landlady appears to have refused permission for spending any amount of the rent towards executing repairs or white-washing is apparent from the notice sent by the landlady under Exhibit 4-10, dated 9th June, 1977. Repeatedly the and lady was demanding the amount of Rs. 1,200 which was deducted by the tenant. Admittedly, the tenant has not obtained the permission of the Rent Controller for executing such repairs. The appellate authority has found that the alleged white-washing of the building by the tenant is without the written consent of the landlady and that as such the deduction of Fs. 1,200 from the rents due at Rs. 100 per month amounted to wilful default.
4. Even according to the provisions of the Act (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960), the Rent Controller can permit only one month's rent as the maximum for executing repairs to the building. Therefore, the conclusion of the appellate authority that the deduction of Rs. 1,200 being 12 months' rent towards alleged execution of repairs to the building amounted to wilful default is quite correct. The conclusion of the appellate authority on both grounds of act of waste and wilful default cannot be considered to be perverse or illogical. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said conclusion of the appellate authority. The result therefore is the order of the appellate authority (Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore) is confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed with costs. The tenant is granted two months' time from this date to vacate the building.