KANAKAMMAL Vs. I. S. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (NPD). No. 4263 of 2010 has been preferred challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 06.07.2010 made in R.C.A. No. 1577 of 2003 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority/VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the Order and Decretal order, dated 02.12.2003 made in R.C.O.P. No. 870 of 2000 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 4264 of 2010 has been preferred challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 06.07.2010 made in R.C.A. No. 1578 of 2003 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority/VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the Order and Decretal order, dated 02.12.2003 made in R.C.O.P. No. 871 of 2000 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) It is seen that R.C.O.P. No. 870 of 2000 was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned Rent Controller allowed the Rent Control Original Petition, against which the petitioners herein preferred R.C.A. No. 1577 of 2003, however, by the Judgment and Decree dated 06.07.2010, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. Aggrieved by which the Civil Revision Petition No. 4263 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 25 of the Act.

(3.) It is seen that the R.C.O.P. No. 871 of 2010 was preferred by the respondent herein against the petitioners under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and by order and decretal order, 02.12.2003, learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction against the Revision petitioners herein and that was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by which, Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (NPD). No. 4264 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 25 of the Act.