N ATHIMOOLAM Vs. AROKIANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant against whom an order of eviction was passed in the trial court and which was confirmed before the lower appellate court in R.C.A. 29 of 1991, has come forward with this revision petition.

(2.) SHORT facts are:? The respondent/landlord has filed the petition for eviction on the ground of requirement for non-residential purposes and on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. That was opposed by the tenant/revision petitioner herein. In the additional counter, a plea is raised that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On that, the trial court had taken up that contention also into consideration and had framed a point whether the denial of the petitioner's claim is bona fide or not. The trial court had held that there was wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and there was denial of title which was not bona fide, but rejected the petitioner's claim of requirement for own use and for non-residential purposes. On appeal by the tenant, the appellate authority had held that there was wilful default in payment of rent, on a finding that there was arrears of rent for the period from May 1988 to July, 1988 and it was wilful. Contrary to the finding of the trial Court, the appellate authority had found that the requirement for own use for non-residential purr poses was bona fide. Regarding the question of denial of title, the lower appellate court had not differed from the finding of the trial court. Thus the Appellate Authority had also come to the conclusion that the landlord/petitioner in the trial court is entitled to get an order of eviction and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant/respondent in the trial court has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) MR. R. Balasubramanian would submit that this finding rejecting this ground by the trial court is a finding adverse to the respondent/landlord, that the respondent had not filed any appeal despite that finding and while so, the Appellate Authority was wrong in giving a finding that this requirement is a bona fide one and allowed the petition on that ground also. The very question as to whether a party can urge a ground before the Appellate Authority when it failed before the Rent Controller, without filing an appeal questioning that finding, came up for consideration in this Court and this Court found that it can be so urged in Shelat Brothers v. Lodd Narendradas 1986-1-M.L.J. 16 =1988-2-LW. 8(S.N.), Justice V. Ratnam as he then was, had held that it is open to the parties to sustain the order of the Rent Controller on grounds found against him without filing an independent proceeding, before the Appellate Authority. The learned Judge has held as follows: