K.P.V. SELVARAJ Vs. MADHAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Sec. 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner on the ground of cessation of occupation under Sec. 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. The allegation of the landlord was that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than two years preceding the date of the Rent Control Petition. The tenant's defence was that he was laid up and therefore, he would not conduct business. The evidence in the case consisted of Exts.A1 rent chit, Ext. C1 commission report, oral evidence of witnesses PWs 1 & 2 and CPW1 who was none other than the tenant. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that his cessation of occupation of the building was due to reasons stated in his counter. That Court ordered eviction.

(2.) The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction.

(3.) In this revision under Sec. 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri. R.S. Kalkura, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. When Mr. Kalkura's attention was drawn to the reasonableness of the finding concurrently entered by the statutory authorities that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for about two years, Mr. Kalkura said that during the pendency of the RCP the tenant has recommenced his business and the business, which is carried on in the petition schedule building, accounts for the only source of livelihood for the tenant.