KRISHNAN Vs. P. USHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed the above civil revision petition challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No. 1 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul, confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

(2.) THE respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 2008 for eviction on the ground of wilful default. In the said RCOP, the landlord filed an application in I.A.No. 46 of 2008 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The said application was allowed by the Rent Controller, since the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Controller. Consequently, the Rent Controller also ordered eviction in RCOP No. 2 of 2008. Against the consequential order passed in RCOP No. 2 of 2008, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA No. 1 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that the tenant had not challenged the order passed under Section 11(4) of the Act. The Tenant had challenged only the consequential order passed in RCOP No. 2 of 2008. When the order passed in I.A.No. 46 of 2008 is against the tenant, he should have challenged that order also. But, the tenant allowed that order to become final.