B.MURTHY Vs. G.AMIRTHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant, who suffered concurrent orders of eviction before the Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal is the revision petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and Mr.A.S.Vijaya Raghavan for Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

(3.) Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would first and foremost contend that the petitioner and the respondent were parties to an order of fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the fair rent had become final and the petitioner had been diligently paying the same. While so, the respondent cannot seek to enhance the rent unilaterally and arbitrarily, giving a go by to the fair rent fixed under Sec. 4 of the erstwhile Rent Control Act. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the demand of higher rent, over and above the fair rent fixed was not even legal or proper and it could not have been the basis for ordering eviction under Sec. 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act.