VELLORE SHROF KUMARSWAMI CHETTI CHOULTRY Vs. VEERASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the Vellore Shrof Kumarswami Chetty Choultry by Executive trustee, Sri V. K. Kannappa Chettiar seeks to revise the decree and order of the district Judge in C. R. P. No. 16 of 1968 on his file, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority, on the ground of sub-letting.

(2.) THE petitioner and the respondent entered into the lease Ex. A-1, for the respondent carrying on a laundry business in the leasehold premises. The petitioner came forward with the case that the respondent-tenant sublet the premises to one Mani for running a tea shop. The respondent denied sub-letting and stated that as the income from his laundry business was not sufficient for the maintenance of his increasing family, he started the tea shop agreeing to pay additional rent. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in this case, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have in detailed and well-considered orders accepted the case of the petitioner and ordered eviction. The learned District Judge has, in revision filed by the tenant, concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority, that the tea shop was run in the demised premises itself and not in the vacant municipal site as put forward by the respondent-tenant in the course of his evidence. However, for the reasons stated in paragraph 6 of his order, the learned District Judge found that there was no subletting and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority and dismissed the eviction petition.

(3.) I entirely agree with the contentions of Sri K. Parasaran that it is for the landlord to establish independently his plea that the respondent-tenant has sublet the premises. It is really unnecessary to refer to the decision in M. K. Palaniappa chettiar v. Ponnusami Pillai, 1970-1 SC WR 487 at p. 490 in support of the said obvious proposition. But, as already pointed out, the Rent Controller and the appellate authority have in well considered orders accepted the case of the landlord. Even a reading of paragraph 6 of the order of the learned District Judge will show that the reasons given by him are not sufficient and would not justify interference with the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, even giving full scope to the words in Section 25 of the Madras Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act defining the revisional jurisdiction of the district court.