RAJESWARI Vs. RAMALINAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents have filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 20.7.2007 in R.C.A. No.26 of 2004 passed by the Learned Principal Sub-Judge, Salem (Rent Control Appellate Authority).

(2.) THE learned Principal Sub-Judge, Salem (Rent Control Appellate Authority) while passing orders in R.C.A. No. 26 of 2004 on 20.7.2007 had among other things observed that -witness of R.W.1 (First Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent) admitted that now she was residing at Bangalore and his brother alone doing the business in the shop which clearly establish the sub-lease as claimed by the landlord and also was of the view that R.W.1 (First Revision Petitioner/First Respondent) had admitted that she had not paid any rent as determined in the Fair Rent proceedings and therefore, she committed wilful default in payment of Arrears of Rent and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs-.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Appellants/Tenants, the orders of the Learned Appellate Authority, Rent Controller are not supported by acceptable evidence and in fact, both the authorities have not appreciated the fact that the Revision Petitioners are not in arrears of rent and they have not committed any wilful default in payment of rent.