NATARAJAN Vs. N M KALIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Tenant has projected this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 3.4.2009 in R.C.A. No.88 of 2007 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority viz., II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE learned Appellate Authority viz., II Additional Sub-Judge, Coimbatore while passing order in R.C.A. No.88 of 2007 on 3.4.2009 has among other things observed that -on considering the location of the complex, the Petition mentioned premises alone as frontage, it is for the Respondent/Landlord to decide about the suitable portion to run his Advocate office and the Revision Petitioner/Tenant is disentitled to suggest the alternative portion to the Respondent/Landlord for running his Advocate office, etc.,- and resultantly, dismissed the Rent Control Appeal without costs.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, the order of the learned Rent Controller and that of the learned Appellate Authority are against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and that the learned Appellate Authority has not analysed the subject matter in issue in the Appeal independently.