P RETHINASWAMI Vs. S M A KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed by a tenant in Rent Control proceedings, feeling aggrieved by the judgement of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 12 of 1987.

(2.) THE respondents herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 24 of 1984, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruthuraipoondi, for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground that he had committed wilful default in payment of rents, that he ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months, and also on the ground that he had committed acts of waste.

(3.) CONTENDING contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord Miss R.T. Shyamala, submitted that the concurrent finding of the Authorities below to the effect that the tenant/petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground that he (tenant) has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, is well-founded and supported by evidence and therefore, does not call for any interference. The authorities below have placed reliance on the notice issued by the Electricity Board for non-payment of electricity charges by the tenant for the separate meter installed in the premises in question and also the non-payment of Professional tax. The Authorities below have also taken note of the failure on the part of the tenant to produce the license to carry on the business during the relevant period. In as much as the finding of the Authorities below is supported by documentary evidence the same cannot be interfered with by this Court sitting in Revision, is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. She also placed reliance on a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and another judgement of the Supreme Court, on the scope of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act.