PALANIYANDI Vs. VAIRAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two C. R. Ps. have been filed against the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the orders passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) THE revision petitioner in both the C. R. Ps. is the tenant under the respondent/landlord. Admittedly, there are proceedings pending against the revision petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. From the orders of Rent Controller, it is clear that there are 9 portions in the house and 8 tenants have vacated, but the petitioner alone did not vacate the house and the construction activities are also going on after demolition of this portion. The petitioner also has filed a petition to restore the water connection. That application has been rejected on the ground that the revision petitioner filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 349/97 and obtained a stay. Even prior to that the water supply was disconnected. In spite of that the tenant did not mention anything in that and did not take any steps to restore. Under these circumstances, the present application to restore water connection is filed only with the intention to protract the matter and to delay the process of vacating the premises. Having come to such a conclusion, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the plea of the petitioner. Against that, the present revisions have been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority and contended that with the malafide intention the landlord filed the petitions for eviction; further the landlord has no right to disconnect the water connection.