Madras High Court
Umar Parook vs Mohammed Husaimul Asif on 6 December, 2021
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
Umar Parook .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Mohammed Husaimul Asif
2. A.Fouzull Ameen
3. Mrs.S.M.T.Rameeza Beevi .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25(1) of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act 1960), praying to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in RCA No.497 of 2018 dated 12.11.2018 on
the file of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai by confirming the fair and
decreetal order passed in RCOP No.1588 of 2013 dated 14.02.2018 on the
file of XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar
For Respondents : Mr. Ashok Menon
ORDER
The tenant challenges the orders of eviction granted concurrently by
the Authorities under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of waste, within the
meaning of Section 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960.
2. The landlord sued for eviction contending that the tenant’s action
in extending the water pipe line by removing the main door of the premises
would amount to an act of waste, which has the effect of materially
impairing the value and utility of the building. There was also another
ground of eviction namely nuisance which has been rejected. The complaint
of the landlord was that the tenant without Authority extended the water
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
pipe line and removed the door which was in good condition.
3. The tenant resisted the eviction contending that the extension of
pipe line was to maintain the water supply that was available and the door
was removed only with a view to avoid drilling holes in the wall to take the
water pipe line. However, while leading evidence, the tenant deposed that
the landlord only did the extension of the water pipe line as well as the
removal of the door. However, while cross-examining P.W.1, a suggestion
was made to him saying that since he did not maintain the water supply, the
tenant was forced to change the pipe line and in order to avoid drilling holes
in the wall, the tenant had removed the door.
4. This conflicting evidence was taken into account by the learned
Rent Controller to come to the conclusion that the action of the tenant in
removing the door amounted to acts of waste, within the meaning of
10(2)(iii) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court
in 1986 (1) MLJ 363, in support of the said conclusion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
5. Aggrieved the tenant preferred an Appeal in RCA No.497 of 2018.
The Appellate Authority on a reconsideration of the evidence concurred with
the conclusions of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeal.
6. I have heard Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
7. Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant
would vehemently contend that the act of the tenant in attempting to
maintain an amenity that was available to him cannot be termed as an act of
waste within the meaning of Section10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act. He would point out that since the landlord
was reluctant or he did not take steps to maintain water supply to the
building in his occupation, the tenant was forced to extend the pipe line and
in order to avoid drilling of hole in the wall, he had removed the door and
taken the pipe line through it. According to him, the said action of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
tenant would not amount to an act of waste within the meaning of Section
10(2)(iii) namely an act that would materially impair the value and utility of
the building.
8. Contending contra, Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents/landlord would submit that the tenant’s case is wholly
inconsistent. While cross-examining P.W.1, a suggestion is put to P.W.1 to
the effect that because of his failure to maintain the water supply, the tenant
was forced to extend the pipe line and also remove the door to enable such
extension. But in cross-examination of the tenant, the tenant has deposed
that the landlord alone has done it and not himself. This conflicting stand
was taken into account by the learned Rent Controller in concluding that the
tenant’s evidence is not reliable. He would also point out that this Court had
in 1986 (1) MLJ 363, held that removal of a door by itself would amount to
an acts of waste, under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
9. I have considered the rival submissions.
10. No doubt, in order to constitute acts of waste within the meaning
of Section 10(2)(iii), the said Act must be one which would impair the value
and utility of the building in question. Both the Authorities under the Act
have relied upon a judgment of this Court and had come to the conclusion
that the act of the tenant of extending the pipe line and also removing the
door would amount to an acts of waste, within the meaning of Section
10(2)(iii) of the Act.
11. Though the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is a little wider than the revisional
Jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I do not think
that I can re-appreciate the evidence and substitute my own findings in the
place of the findings of the Authorities. Section 25 of the Act, of course,
authorises the High Court to be satisfied about the regularity of the
proceedings. I find that the Authorities under the Act, had analysed the
evidence on record independently and have come to a concurrent conclusion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
Considering the limited scope of a Revision under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, I do not think that I can
interfere with the concurrent findings unless it is shown that such concurrent
findings are against law or that they are based on no evidence. Despite his
best efforts, Mr.Manohar, is unable to make out such a case.
12. Hence, I do not see any ground to interfere with the orders of
eviction passed by the Authorities. The Civil Revision Petition fails and it is
accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
is closed. No costs.
06.12.2021
jv
Index: No
Internet: Yes
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
To
1. The XII Judge
Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The XII Judge
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
jv
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.15 of 2020
and CMP No.105 of 2020
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
