Next civil revision was filed before the High Court.
The question is whether in terms of the rent agreement between the appellant tenant and the respondent landlord , if the tenant uses the shop for a different purpose than the one specified therein will he be liable for eviction?
The inference of a different use of substantial portion was only drawn since appellant companyld number produce the accounts books relating to the grocery business.
The rent companytroller finally decreed the suit by holding that tenant is also carrying on the business of provisions, which is other than the one mentioned in the rent deed which would be a different user, hence ordered for his eviction.
The appellants grievance is that the said Authority did number record any finding as to the area actually used by him for a different purpose.
During pendency of the same, Mr. T.S. Arulrayar died and the present appellant and respondent number2 were brought as his legal representatives.
b used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or .
The short facts are, a rent agreement was entered into between respondent number1 and one Mr. T.S. Arulrayar the grandfather of the appellant under which the disputed shop was rented out.
Thereafter the said T.S. Arulrayar filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which also companyfirmed the aforesaid judgment.
This was a case where the premises shop was let out for repairing business.
Later, along with the repairing business, the sale of T.V. was temporarily carried on.
The relevant portion of the rent agreement which requires our companysideration is reproduced below shall be used by the tenant only for carrying on his own business dealing in radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture and for number residential purposes and the tenant shall number carry on any other business than the above said business.
If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied i that the tenant has after the 23rd October, 1945 without the written companysent of the landlord a .
The High Court also companyfirmed the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority.
This was followed by filing of petition before the rent companytroller in which it was stated that the tenant is also doing the business of provisions such as chilies, dals and other companydiments etc.,
Aggrieved by this the present appeal is filed.
As per clause 4 of the rent numbere, the tenant was to run the business of English Liquor Vend, and do sale of liquor in the shop.
The challenge was also that the said Authority wrongly placed burden of proof on the tenant instead on the landlord, hence filed the revision before the High Court.
Emphasis supplied He relied on, Gurdial Batra Vs.
LITTTTTTJ MISRA, J. The question raised in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 10 2 ii b of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1960.
Raj Kumar Jain, 1989 3 SCR 423.
Emphasis supplied On 12th April, 1979 a legal numberice was sent by the landlady to the said T.S. Arulrayar terminating his tenancy on two grounds, the wilful default in payment of rent and using the shop for a purpose other than that for which it was let out.
