NGNANAMBAL Vs. S MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLADY is the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions, arising out of the common order dated 15. 04. 2002 passed in R. C. A. No. 755 and 133 of 1998 by the VIII Judge, Small Causes, Court, Chennai, which themselves were preferred against the er dated 12. 08. 1998 passed in R. C. O. P. No. 1509 of 1996 by the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) THE rent control original petition was filed under sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for eviction on the ground of wilful default and subletting. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction only on the ground of subletting. Even that order of eviction was set aside in R. C. A. No. 75 5 of 1998 preferred by the tenants. R. C. A. No. 133 of 1998 was preferred by the landlady against the finding that there was no wilful default and that appeal was dismissed. Upon the dismissal of both the grounds, these revision petitions are separately filed by the landlady.

(3.) THE issues before us are as to (i) whether there is wilful default in payment of rent for the months of March, April and May 1996? and (ii)whether there was subletting made by the tenant?