MOHAMMED SALEHA Vs. SYED NOORUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition has been filed by the respondent in h. R. A. No. 1470 of 1979, who is the landlord against the order, dated 22nd august, 1980, setting aside the order of eviction passed in H. R. C. No. 2120 of 1978 by the then X Court of Small Causes , Madras, dated 23rd June, 1979.

(2.) THE landlord filed an eviction petition under sections 10 (2) (ii) (a) and 10 (2) (Hi) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 alleging that the tenant has without the written consent and knowledge of the landlord and contrary to the terms of the lease demised the premises to a sub-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 125, even though the letting in favour of the respondent-main-tenant was on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 and for having effected unauthorised construction and additions without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. In H. R. C. No. 2120 of 1978, the alleged sub-tenant has not been impleaded by the landlord. THE Rent Controller rejected the ground of acts of waste and ordered eviction on the ground of sub-letting and granted 3 months to vacate the premises. THEreupon, the tenant filed an appeal against the order of eviction of the Rent Controller. THE appellate authority has found that the alleged sub-tenant is only the brother of the appellant and there was no sub-letting at all and, accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) THE only argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the brother of the tenant could have been examined by the tenant to prove that he is not a sub-tenant. In Exhibit P-4 reply notice, the tenant has already pleaded that the landlord had sent a previous lawyer notice making same allegations to say that the tenant had sublet to one syed Ahmed some years before, that he had refuted the said allegation by sending reply notice and that Syed Ahmed is none else than his brother. THE landlord has not let in any evidence to prove that Syed Ahmed is a sub-tenant and not the brother of the main tenant, whereas the tenant has adduced satisfactory evidence to show that Syed Ahmed, whose real name is Syed ahamadullah Hussain, is the son of Syed Hussain, just like the tenant Syed nooruddin, who is also the son of Syed Hussain residing at old No. 52|1 pachiappa Chetty Street. THEre is absolutely no merit whatsoever in the revision petition and it has to be dismissed with costs.