S BALAKRISHNAN Vs. VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who is aggrieved by concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority directing eviction has filed this revision petition. THE only contention urged before me by learned senior counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that the application for eviction is not maintainable inasmuch as it relates to two different tenancies filed by two landlords. According to the learned counsel, the landlords must have filed two separate petitions as they are owners of two different portions of the same building in view of the fact that they had notionally divided the same and let out the portion belonging to each of them separately to the tenant.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the building belonged originally to the mother of the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P. by name Seethalakshmi Ammal. After her death, the property devolved on the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P. and his brother the father of the second petitioner. After the death of the second petitioner's father, he became a joint owner of the property. Admittedly, after the death of Seethalakshmi Ammal, the two brothers were receiving rents separately with respect to separate portions of the same building notionally. IT was said that the northern portion belonged to one brother and the southern portion belonged to the other. But the property was not actually divided. Even at the time of the petition for eviction and even now, the property continues to be only one building having one door number. IT is not in dispute that the tenant is running a hotel business in the entire premises.

(3.) R.W. 1 the tenant has stated in his cross-examination as follows: