P.S. MURUGESAN Vs. P.N. NALLASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the tenants. C.R.P.(NPD) No.2790 of 2013 arises out of R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 filed under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The said R.C.O.P. was dismissed and an appeal preferred by the landlord in R.C.A.No.1/2011 was allowed. C.R.P.(NPD) No.2791 of 2013 arises out of R.C.O.P.No.2/2008 filed under sections 14(1)(b), 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii) of the said Act. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the R.C.O.P. and the appeal by the landlord in R.C.A.No.2/2011 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority was allowed and eviction was ordered on the grounds of Sections 14(1)(b) and 10(2)(ii) and however by rejecting the eviction sought under Section 10(2)(i) of the said Act. Thus, the aggrieved tenants are before this Court.

(2.) In both these civil revision petitions, the petitioners are different tenants and the respondent/landlord is one and the same. Both the tenants are occupying different portions within the same building. Both of them are commonly aggrieved against the order of eviction passed under section 14(1)(b). In so far as the tenant in CRP (NPD) No.2791 of 2013 is concerned, the order of eviction was passed also on the ground of change of user. Thus, the validity of the order of eviction passed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is to be considered first in both these civil revision petitions.

(3.) The respondent herein filed the eviction petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Controller, Gobichettipalayam against the petitioners herein respectively.