GOVINDARAJULU Vs. K SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties in the appeal and the suit are one and the same.

(2.) PURSUANT to the directions of the Supreme Court in C.A.No.2825 of 1996, both the second appeal and the suit have been taken up for joint hearing.

(3.) IN the meantime, in the second round of the rent control proceedings, as against the dismissal of R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1989 by the Rent Controller, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the landlord in R.C.A.No.1063 of 1991. IN the revision by the tenant in C.R.P.No.3257 of 1993, Thanikkachalam, J. as he then was, held that after the eviction proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.3112 of 1969, which became final, there was no fresh lease agreement between the parties so as to enable the landlord to plead landlord-tenant relationship and hence, the tenant was deemed to be a trespasser. With the result, the revision was allowed, which was pursued by the landlord to the Supreme Court.