N.SUBRAMANIAN Vs. F.M.ABUBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A summation and summarisation of the facts giving rise to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition and which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The parties are referred to hereunder, as follows; Abubacker is referred to as landlord and Subramanian is referred to as tenant. One Ramachandran, the second respondent in RCOP was described as sub-lessee and this revision is not as against the rejection of the plea of the sub-lease pleaded by the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord filed RCOP invoking Section 10(2)(a) and 10(3)(4)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground that the tenant Subramanian sub-leased the premises in favour of the second respondent - Ramachandran and that the demised premises was required for the personal occupation of the landlord Abubacker. RCOP was resisted by filing counter. Ultimately, the petition was partly allowed in ordering eviction on the ground of personal occupation of the landlord, as against which the tenant Subramanian filed R.C.A. as against the order of eviction passed against him. Whereas the landlord also filed R.C.A. challenging the order of the Rent Controller in rejecting the plea of sub-lease. After hearing both the sides, by way of a common order, the Lower Appellate Court confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the R.C.A. filed by the tenant-Subramanian, and also the R.C.A. filed by the landlord. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Lower Appellate Court in confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, this revision has been focussed on various grounds.

(3.) WHEREAS , in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth by the learned counsel for the tenant, the learned counsel for the landlord would advance his arguments. A thumbnail sketch of the same would run thus: Both the Courts below having taken into account the pros and cons of the matter, held that the revision petitioner being a businessman, not owning any property on his own in Tirunelveli District, wherein the suit property is situated, and ordered eviction warranting interference. The certified copy of the sale deed-Ex.R6 would exemplify that the alleged non-residential premises situated opposite to the demised premises virtually stands in the name of the landlord and one of his brothers by name Syed Isaac. Accordingly, he would pray for dismissal.