N A S ANSARI Vs. M SARANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by the landlord.

(2.) PETITIONER succeeded before the Rent Controller. But the order was reversed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the revision.

(3.) LANDLORD and tenant relationship is created. It also took into consideration the definitions of'LANDLORD'and 'tenant'as provided in the Rent Control Act. In that view of the matter, the Rent Controller came to the definite conclusion that the tenant is liable to be evicted. It also found that the rent has also not been paid eversince Ex. A-7. Eviction was ordered, giving some time to the tenant for vacating the premises. 7. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority held that the denial of title is bona fide. For the said purpose, the Appellate authority was of the view that the revision petitioner has no absolute title over the property, and there is some inconsistency in regard to the description of the building. It also came to the conclusion that the tenant might have executed Ex. A-7 under pressure. For entering such a finding the Appellate authority was influenced by the fact that the revision petitioner has no absolute title over the land. Consequently the petition for eviction was dismissed. It is against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the LANDLORD has preferred this revision.