T H MOHAMMED FIRDOUS Vs. AMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, landlord challenges the Order of Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.289/1994 on the file of VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, dated 12.02.1997, reversing the Order of eviction made by the Rent Controller dated 30.03.1993, in RCOP No.864/1988, on the file of XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.

(2.) THE Petitioners are co-owners of the Petition premises in D.No.7, Kasi Chetti Street, George Town, Chennai. THE Respondents were Tenants in respect of third floor, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,650/-. Petitioners/landlords filed eviction Petition under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [in short, 'the Act'], on the grounds of unauthorized subletting and different user. According to the Petitioners, Petitioners' Power Agent permitted the Respondents to accommodate their relatives temporarily for a short period on humanitarian grounds. But the premises had been sublet without written consent of the landlords. After issuing notice, Eviction Petition was filed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the Order of eviction, Respondents/Tenants preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority, an unregistered document, purporting to be Lease Deed was produced and received as additional evidence. On the basis of the said unregistered document, Appellate Authority held that subletting is in terms of the lease Agreement and there is no unauthorized subletting. The Appellate Authority further held in the absence of any evidence regarding the purpose for which the premises was let out, the averments of Different User was not acceptable.