PANDI Vs. SEENIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Courts below concurrently, are the revision petitioners. This order shall dispose of the above C.R.Ps.

(2.) THE landlady/respondent in all the C.R.Ps. is one and the same, who had filed the eviction petitions, against various tenants. THE Rent Controller, as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed common orders and in this view, all the C.R.Ps. are clubbed and a common order is passed.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the landlord/respondent submits, that both the Courts below, based on facts, considering the materials from proper perspective, reached a fact finding concurrently, which is not liable to be challenged before this Court, since there is no error either on fact or on law. In this view, supporting the findings of the Courts below, the main thrust of the landlady is, that the revisions are devoid of merits.