S. DEVARAJ Vs. N. RAJALEKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision under Sec. 20 is the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner by the statutory authorities concurrently on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation (Section 11(2) and Sec. 11(3) respectively). The prominent contention which was raised by the revision petitioner was denial of landlord -tenant relationship. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A6, R1 to R17, C1 Commission Report, Oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and CPWs.1 and 2 came to the conclusion that the denial of landlord -tenant relationship between the parties made by the revision petitioner was without bona fides. That court also concluded that the need projected was bona fide and that rent was in arrears as alleged. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed on both grounds on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation under Sec. 11(3) and arrears of rent under Sec. 11(2). But eviction was declined on other grounds. As the order declining order of eviction on those grounds has become final, we need be concerned only with the grounds of eviction under Sec. 11(2) and 11(3).

(2.) The Appellate Authority reappraised the entire evidence. That authority concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the RCR.

(3.) In this revision under Sec. 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri. G.S. Reghunath, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of all the grounds. Sri. Reghunath submitted that in a case where the existence of landlord -tenant relationship between the parties is denied, it is fundamental that the statutory authorities enter finding regarding the bona fides of such denial. Though not in a satisfactory manner, the Rent Control Court considered the above contention; the Appellate Authority which is the statutory appellate authority to re -consider the said contention has not chosen to consider that contention at all. According to Mr. Reghunath, the non -consideration of the above vital contention by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is a grave illegality/irregularity/impropriety which would justify invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.