K. MURUGANANDAM Vs. K. BHOOMA RAGHUPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady. The revision petitioner suffered an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (herein after called as the 'Act') which was also confirmed by the appellate authority. As against the concurrent order of eviction passed by the Courts below, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.

(3.) The respondent/landlady filed Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on three grounds, namely, wilful default, additional accommodation and for owner's occupation. The learned Rent Controller, though rejected the grounds of wilful default and additional accommodation, has however accepted the ground of owner's occupation and allowed the RCOP by his order dated 22.11.2013. Challenging the said order, both the landlady and the tenant filed appeals before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No. 643 of 2013 (Appellant is the tenant) and R.C.A.No. 30 of 2014 (Appellant is the landlady). The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the R.C.A.No. 643 of 2014 and allowed the R.C.A.No. 30 of 2014. Thus, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.