V. KARUTHAPANDIAN Vs. S. RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014 is filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2014 passed in R.C.A. No. 445 of 2012 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction dated 28.06.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 1614 of 2010 while C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1986 of 2014 is filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2012 passed in R.C.A. No. 444 of 2012 confirming the dismissal of R.C.O.P. No. 674 of 2011, filed by the tenant seeking permission to deposit the monthly rent of the petition premises from November, 2010 onwards, by order dated 28.06.2012.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) THE Courts below, taking into consideration, that there is no proof for payment of rent from October, 2009 to November, 2010, concluded that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. As far as sub -letting is concerned, based on the evidence of the 1st petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014/petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1986 of 2014, that he alone took the petition premises on rent, for residential purpose; that he is doing Halwa business and that the 2nd petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014 is also residing in the petition premises, the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, came to the conclusion that when the tenancy is in favour of the 1st petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014/petitioner in C.R.P.(NDP) No. 1986/2014, there is no occasion for the 2nd petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985/2014 to be in the petition premises and therefore, holding that sub -letting is also proved, ordered eviction on both the grounds. Since the eviction order passed by the Courts below, is based on evidence of R.W.1, namely, the tenant, it cannot be set aside and the same is confirmed. Hence, C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs.