V VENKATACHALAM Vs. N RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in R.C.O.P. No. 22/ 1990 dated 28-3-1991, and R.C.A. No. 8/ 1991 dated 19-8-1991, which confirms the order of eviction passed against him is the revision petitioner herein canvassing the impugned orders for their want of legality and propriety and correctness, by both Courts below.

(2.) A residential premises has been let out to the tenant-petitioner herein even during the lifetime of his father and the landlords, the respondents herein became the owner of this property by means of a purchase deed under Ex.P.1 dated 29-10-1986. These facts are not in dispute. Claiming that the revision petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent and the rental premises in question was a old one, and since the respondents are residing in a rental premises, projecting those three grounds under Ss.10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the respondents-landlords have filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controller. On contest and consideration of the entire evidence adduced and the rival contentions, the learned Rent Controller has accepted the case of the respondents-landlords in toto and passed the order of eviction. However, in the appeal preferred by the tenant before the, learned Appellate Authority canvassing the correctness of the order of eviction, the ground sought for under S.10(2)(i) of the Act was not pressed by the landlord-respondents herein. The remaining two grounds were persuaded. On hearing both the parties along with their respective evidence and contentions, the learned Appellate Authority concurred in his finding with the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and thereby confirmed the order of eviction passed against the tenant. Aggrieved at this, the present revision has been directed.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller, besides the evidence of PW 1 and PW1 and RW 1, on behalf of the respondents, 13 documents were relied on and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.13, of which Exs.P.8 and P.9 are the Commissioner's report and plan filed in R. C.O. P. No. 21 / 1987 on a prior occasion with Ex.P.9 a rough sketch showing the rental premises in question and its condition. Ex.P.10 is the plan showing the proposed reconstruction, and Exp.11 is the licence granted by the Municipal Authorities to the rental premises. The other documents show that the respondents have got means and of the requirement of the rental premises for own use and occupation and for demolition and reconstruction. On behalf of the revision petitioner-tenant, two documents Exs. R. l and R.2 were relied on before the learned Rent Controller besides his oral claim as RW1.