S PARASAMAL Vs. G RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions are directed against the common Order in R.C.A.Nos.847, 848, 850/2005 [dated 05.04.2006] on the file of the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai, ordering eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) for owner's use and occupation.

(2.) ALL the CRPs arise out of the common Order, involving common points. Hence all the three CRPs were heard together and disposed of by this common Order. For convenience, parties are referred in their original rank in RCOP.

(3.) CHALLENGING the Order of eviction, Tenants have preferred this revision. The impugned Order is mainly attacked contending that the Appellate Authority committed gross error in receiving additional documents. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Rent Controller has recorded specific findings that even basic facts were not supported by documents and held that there was no bonafide requirement. It is the contention of the Tenants that when such specific finding was recorded by the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority ought not to have allowed the landlord to bring forth further documents ante dated and ought not to have based its findings on such additional evidence adduced by the Petitioner/landlord. It was further contended that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller has been neutralized by Appellate Authority by recording additional evidence. The learned Counsel has also urged that the principles laid down under Or.41 R.27 CPC was not followed and fresh evidence ought not to have been allowed at the appellate stage.