C KEVAL CHAND Vs. KARUPPANNA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these revisions arising under the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, landlords are the revision petitioners.

(2.) EXCEPT in C. R. P. No. 2677 of 1989, the findings of the authorities below are concurrent, against the landlords. In C. R. P. No. 2677 of 1989, Rent Controller found that the claim of the landlords is bona fide and that they require the building for their own occupation. When the matter was taken in appeal, the appellate authority, in view of its judgment in the appeals which are the subject-matter of revision in C. R. P. Nos. 2674, 2675 and 2676 of 1969, allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim. Hence, the revision petitions by the landlords.

(3.) I have already said that the decisions in the three revision petitions are concurrent, and following that decision the Rent Controlle r's order of eviction was set aside in appeal. Even though the findings in C. R. P. No. 2677 of 1989 are not concurrent, the findings in other cases will have to follow in that revision also, since the subject-matter of the same is also part of the same structure.