LOURDURAJ Vs. HENDRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 12. 8. 1998 and 10. 10. 2001 made in R. C. A. Nos. 12/97 and 10/99, on the file of the Appellate Authority, (Principal Sub-Judge) Mayiladuthurai confirming the orders dated 9. 4. 97 and 10. 8. 99 made in RCOP Nos. 10/96 and 32/97 on the file of the rent controller (Principal District Munsif) Mayiladuthurai, respectively.

(2.) AS the parties are one and the same and the property involved in all the revision petitions is the very same property, a common order is being passed to dispose of both the revision petitions.

(3.) EVEN though the RCOP was dismissed on technical ground, that is, filing the RCOP for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for owner's occupation within 3 months from the date of purchase, the tenant was aggrieved by the findings of the rent controller that the landlord is competent to file an eviction petition on the basis of the sale deed dated 25. 3. 1996 and that the landlord bonafidely required the property for his own occupation. Therefore he filed RCA No. 12/1997 against those findings alone and the rent control appellate authority after re-evaluating the evidence confirmed the findings of the rent controller. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 12. 8. 98 made in RCA No. 12/1997 confirming the findings of the rent controller dated 9. 4. 97 made in RCOP No. 10/1996, the tenant has filed CRP. NPD. No. 2102/1999.