R SAMPATH Vs. MANIMEGALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities ordering eviction under Section 10(2)(i) - wilful default and Section 10(3)(a)(i) - owner's use and occupation. Tenant is the revision petitioner.

(2.) CASE of the landlady is as follows:

(3.) ASSAILING the concurrent findings, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant has submitted that the Courts below did not properly appreciate Exhibit P-1 Vardamana Letter and that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the original owner Krishnaraj and there is no relationship of landlady and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. It was further submitted that the landlady has not proved tenancy relationship between the revision petitioner and the original owner. The learned counsel also urged that even assuming that the revision petitioner came into possession as a tenant, unless and until the sum of Rs. 10,000/- is repaid, the petitioner need not pay any monthly rent and need not vacate and hence, the impugned order or eviction is to be set aside.