SENGANI AMMAL Vs. AUTHYSEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R. C. O. P. No. 126 of 1986, on the file of the rent Controller, Pondicherry , is the revision petitioner.

(2.) EVICTION was ordered on the ground that the petitioner herein has sub-let the building to one Arputham for the purpose of carrying on his business. The concurrent finding of the authorities below is challenged in this revision.

(3.) WHILE R. W. 2 was examined, he has stated that he is working in that building as a barber receiving daily wages of Rs. 20. He has also said that he is not related either to the petitioner or her husband. He said that the daily income would be Rs. 35 from the shop and he used to maintain accounts and the accounts will be given either to the petitioner herein or her husband and they will satisfy themselves about the correctness of the same. He said that he does not know in whose name the building stands. He denied the suggestion that he is a sub-lessee.