Judgment :- 1. Tenant in R.C.O.P No. 13 of 1987, on the file of Controller-Cum-District Munsif, Arkonam is the revision petitioner. 2. Eviction petition was filed by the first respondent herein on the ground that the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in paying the rent. He has also staled that the building is required for the owners occupation. Further grounds of eviction are, unauthorised sub-letting and acts of waste alleged to have been committed by the tenant materially affecting the utility of the building. 3. In this Revision we are concerned only with the grounds of sub-letting and acts of waste. The other two grounds of wilful default and owners occupation were found against the landlord. The landlord has not filed any Revision, and the same has become final. 4. In so far as the ground of sub-letting is concerned, the case put forward by the first respondent is that the second counter petitioner in the eviction petition has been unauthorisedly inducted into the building where he is doing watch repairing business. It is said that the tenancy was with the petitioner herein, who was conducting a provision store. At present, he is not making use of the demised building and the same is in the possession of the second counter-petitioner to the eviction petition. It is further alleged by the landlord that the revision petitioner herein has committed acts of waste, which have materially impaired the utility and value of the building. It is further said that some changes have been made to the shop building which have affected the utility of the building. 5. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord is entitled to succeed both on the ground of sub-letting and also on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of waste, materially affecting the value and utility of the building. 6. When the allegation of sub-letting was made, it was answered by the revision petitioner stating that he is still continuing his business in provision store, and that there is no watch repairing business at all in the scheduled premises. Documentary evidence was filed to show that a portion of the building is occupied by a stranger. The documentary evidence was in the nature of photographs with negatives. Initially, the photographs were challenged as if they do not relate to the scheduled building. Documentary evidence was filed to show that a portion of the building is occupied by a stranger. The documentary evidence was in the nature of photographs with negatives. Initially, the photographs were challenged as if they do not relate to the scheduled building. But subsequently, after examining the photographer and also after the identity of the building was proved, the revision petitioner also did not seriously challenge the identity. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not challenge that part of the finding by the Rent Controller. When the photographs and negatives were filed before the Rent Controller to show that there was watch repairing business going on in the building in question, the revision petitioner changed his stand. He said that the watch repairing business is conducted by his son, who is assisting him. He still continues to be in legal possession, and that there was no sub-lease. He also contended that there was no monetary consideration for his son doing business in watch repairing, and there is no exclusive possession given to the so called sub-lessee. When such a contention was put forward, the landlord wanted to identify the person seen in the photograph, who was doing the watch repairing business. Admittedly the person who was conducting the watch repairing business and shown in the photograph was not the son of the tenant. 7. Before eviction petition was filed, suit notice was issued both to the revision petitioner and the so called sub-tenant. The second counter petitioner to the eviction petition received the suit notice in the address of the scheduled building. So far as the landlord was concerned, he received the same in his house address. While summons was taken after the eviction petition was filed, the second counter petitioner refused to accept the same. At the same time, it also came in evidence that the revision petitioner was not doing any business in the scheduled premises. The provision store was no longer in existence, and only watch repairing business was carried on. The Rent Controller, after evaluating the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the case put forward by the revision petitioner cannot be believed at all. His inconsistent version was taken into consideration by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller also found that the son of the revision petitioner was not examined. The Rent Controller, after evaluating the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the case put forward by the revision petitioner cannot be believed at all. His inconsistent version was taken into consideration by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller also found that the son of the revision petitioner was not examined. It is the case of the landlord that the son of the revision petitioner has no knowledge or practice of watch-repair, and the person who is doing the watch-repairing business is an utter stranger. When that was alleged by the landlord, no counter evidence was let in by examining the son to prove that he has got experience in that field. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenants son was not doing the watch repairing business and that a stranger was in possession. The Rent Controller also took note of the photographs and also the receipt of the suit notice in the address of the scheduled building, for the said purpose. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances was taken note of by the Rent Controller, who held that the person who was doing watch repairing business is a stranger, and that he is in exclusive possession When that is so, it is for the tenant to prove that it was without monetary consideration. The sub-letting alleged by the landlord was found to be true, and the eviction was ordered on that ground. 8. When the matter was taken in appeal before the Appellate Authority, the circumstances relied on by the Rent Controller were fully accepted by it. The Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that even though the initial burden is on the landlord to prove exclusive or parting with possession by the tenant, that burden has been discharged by the landlord, and the evidence adduced by the tenant has not rebutted the initial burden discharged by the landlord in his evidence. The finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord is entitled to get eviction on the ground of un-authorised sub-letting was confirmed. 9. So far as the acts of waste are concerned, the Rent Controller held that the tenant has put up a sun-shade, has dug the floor for the purpose of establishing the watch repairing business, and changes have been made in the building, making it suitable for the said purpose. 9. So far as the acts of waste are concerned, the Rent Controller held that the tenant has put up a sun-shade, has dug the floor for the purpose of establishing the watch repairing business, and changes have been made in the building, making it suitable for the said purpose. It held that the changes were made unauthorisedly and that they have materially affected the utility and value of the building. The tenant was directed to surrender possession to the landlord on that ground also. In appeal, the said finding was confirmed. 10. It is against these concurrent findings, tenant has filed this Revision. 11. I will first deal with the question of unauthorised sub-letting. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the evidence in this case regarding unauthorised sub-letting is vague and the landlord has not proved exclusive possession and the monetary consideration, which are the basic requirements to create sub-tenancy. According to the learned counsel, unless these two points have been proved by the landlord, a finding of sub-tenancy cannot be had and, therefore, the concurrent findings are vitiated. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the initial burden is on the landlord is correct, and the same has to be accepted. But the finding of the courts below is that the landlord has discharged that burden. The question of burden of proof also loses its importance when both parties have adduced evidence. 14. Certain circumstances may be considered before entering a finding whether exclusive possession is with the sub-lessee has been proved. 15. The concurrent finding is that a third person, whether it be the son of the revision petitioner or the second counter-petitioner to the eviction petition, is doing business in watch repairing. Naturally, when a third person is doing business, in the scheduled premises, that can only be with the consent or knowledge of the person in possession or who was in possession, that is, admittedly, the revision petitioner herein. He alone can explain the circumstances under which that third person came to occupy that portion of the building. It is something which is within his personal knowledge. 16. The building was originally used for conducting a provision stores. It has been conclusively established that the said business is no longer carried on (sic) is, watch-repairing business. So, naturally, the revision petitioner is not doing any business. It is something which is within his personal knowledge. 16. The building was originally used for conducting a provision stores. It has been conclusively established that the said business is no longer carried on (sic) is, watch-repairing business. So, naturally, the revision petitioner is not doing any business. He has also no case that he is conducting the watch repairing business. There is no necessity for him to make use of the building. 17. The only person who wants to make use of the building is the third person, whether he be the son of the revision petitioner or the second counter-petitioner to the eviction petition. 18. If he alone requires the building for his use, naturally, an inference can be drawn that he alone is in possession. Evidence has been let in that for the purpose of carrying on the watch repairing business, several changes have been made in the building to make it convenient for the said purpose. This shows that the person who wanted to do the watch repairing business required more or better convenience, and the same has to be in his exclusive possession, that is, without interference from any other person. 19. Taken along with the same, we have to consider the inconsistent stand taken by the revision petitioner. In the counter-statement, he denied that any watch repairing business was being carried on in the scheduled building. He said that he is still running the provision stores. He withdrew the said contention and admitted that a watch repairing business is going on in the premises. A further explanation was put forward that it is his son who is doing the same, and that there was no monetary consideration. The finding of both the Authorities below is that that part of the contention is not substantiated by the revision petitioner. The son has not been examined, and there is no evidence in this case to show that the son has any knowledge in watch repairing business. In the photographs, we find that some other person is doing that business. If a stranger is in possession, naturally, an inference has to be drawn that he was allowed to occupy the building for monetary consideration. In case of sub-lease, the arrangement is between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. The landlord is not a party to it. It is always a secret arrangement. If a stranger is in possession, naturally, an inference has to be drawn that he was allowed to occupy the building for monetary consideration. In case of sub-lease, the arrangement is between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. The landlord is not a party to it. It is always a secret arrangement. The Court can draw certain inferences only from certain circumstances which alone come to the knowledge of the landlord. The initial burden which is on the landlord will stand discharged when he proves those circumstances. According to me, the landlord has adduced evidence on these points which has not been rebutted by the tenant. 20. In this connection, I take support from the decision reported in A.I.R. 1988-S.C.-1845. ( Smt. Rajbir Kaur and another v. S. Chokosiri & Co. ). In paragraph 23 of the judgement, their Lordships have held thus:— “The High Court did not deal specifically with the question whether, in the circumstances of the case, an inference that the parting of the exclusive possession was prompted by monetary consideration could be drawn or not. The High Court did not examine this aspect of the matter, as according to it, one of the essential ingredients, viz. exclusive possession had not been established. If exclusive possession is established, and the version of the respondent as to the particulars and incidents of the transaction is found unacceptable in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be impermissible for the court to draw an inference that the transaction was entered into with monetary consideration in mind. It is open to the respondent to rebut this. Such transactions of subletting in the guise of licences are in their very nature, clandestine arrangements between the tenant and the sub-tenant and there cannot be direct evidence got. It is not, unoften, a matter of legitimate inference. The burden of making good a case of subletting is, of course on the appellants. The burden of establishing facts and contentions which support the partys case is on the party who takes the risk of non-persuasion. If at the conclusion of the trial, a party has failed to establish these to the appropriate standard, he will lose. The burden of making good a case of subletting is, of course on the appellants. The burden of establishing facts and contentions which support the partys case is on the party who takes the risk of non-persuasion. If at the conclusion of the trial, a party has failed to establish these to the appropriate standard, he will lose. Though the burden of proof as a matter of law remains constant throughout a trial, the evidential burden which rests initially upon a party bearing the legal burden, shifts according as the weight of the evidence adduced by the party during the trial. In the circumstances of the case, we think that, appellants having been forced by the Courts below to have established exclusive possession of the icecream vendor of a part of the demise premises and the explanation of the transaction offered by their respondent having been found by the courts below to be unsatisfactory and unacceptable, it was not impermissible for the courts to draw an inference, having regard to the ordinary course of human conduct, that the transaction must have been entered into for monetary considerations . There is no explanation forthcoming from the respondent appropriate to the situation as found”. (Emphasis supplied) 21. The finding of the Authorities below that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted from the scheduled building on the ground of unauthorised sub-letting has, therefore, to be confirmed. 22. The other ground of eviction is ‘acts of waste’ alleged to have been committed by the revision petitioner. Admittedly, some changes have been made by the tenant. He may plead that the changes that have been made have not impaired the utility and value of the building. He may also contend that what he has done has only added to its value. In tins case, the evidence that has been let in is that he has put up a sun-shade, dug holes in the floor and has effected changes for making it convenient to run a watch-repairing shop; Even if it is contended that it is only temporary, a big hall has now been converted into small rooms and made use of for different purposes. While considering as to how far these changes have impaired materially the utility and value of the building, the same has to be judged and determined from the point of view of the landlord, and not that of the tenant. 23. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in JT 1996 (2) S.C. 615 (Shri Gurbachan Singh and Another v. Shivalak Rubber Industries and others), their Lordships held thus:— “A plain reading will go to show that it contemplates that a tenant is liable to eviction who has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land. The meaning of the expression “to impair materially” in common parlance would mean to diminish in quality, strength or value substantially. In other words, to make a thing or substance worse and deteriorate. The word “impair” cannot be said to have a fixed meaning. It is a relative term affording different meanings in different contexts and situations. Here in the context the term “impair materially” has been used to mean considerable decrease in quality which may be measured with reference to the antecedent state of things as it existed earlier in point of time as compared to a later stage after the alleged change is made or effected suggesting impairment. Further, the use of the word “value” means intrinsic worth of a thing. In other words, utility of an object satisfying, directly or indirectly, the needs or desires of a person thus the ground for eviction of a tenant would be available to a landlord against the tenant under S. 13(2)(iii) of the Act, if it is established that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to diminish the quality, strength or value of the building or rented land to such an extent that the intrinsic worth or fitness of the building or the rented land has considerably affected its use for some desirable practical purpose. The decrease or deterioration, in other words, the impairment of the worth and usefulness of the value and utility of the building or rented land has to be judged and determined from the point of view of the landlord and not of the tenant or any one else”. 24. The findings of the Authorities below cannot be said to be without any evidence. That finding also has, therefore, to be upheld. 25. 24. The findings of the Authorities below cannot be said to be without any evidence. That finding also has, therefore, to be upheld. 25. This Court must also take note of the scope of revisional jurisdiction. I take support from the decision reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1845 (supra) wherein it was held thus:— “When the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional Court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent re-assessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the courts below. Therefore in the instant case the concurrent finding as to exclusive possession of sub-tenant was not amenable to reversal in revision by the High Court.” 26. In (1996)-1-SCC-25 (Dev Kumar (died) through L.Rs. v. Swaran Lata (SMT) and others), in paragraph 8 of the judgement, the jurisdiction of revisional Court was considered again. It is held that unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence, the revisional Court shall not interfere. It was held thus:— “The jurisdiction of the High Court under sub section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, would entitle the Court to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority and is thus much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to the well-known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. Unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come to, the High Court will not interfere with the same”. 27. In view of my findings stated above, I confirm the decisions of the Authorities below, and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition with costs.