E SEKAR Vs. SAMPATH RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the concurrent findings of Rent Control Authorities ordering eviction on the ground of wilful default, the Tenant has preferred this revision.

(2.) RELEVANT facts in nutshell for disposal of this revision are as follows: -

(3.) PLACING reliance upon a number of decisions, Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned Counsel for the Respondent/ landlord has submitted that it is the duty of the Tenant to pay rent regularly. The learned counsel further submitted that when Money Orders were refused, Tenant had not taken any steps under Sec.8 of the Act to deposit rent in Bank nor under Sec.9 to deposit the rent in Court. Arguing further, the learned Counsel for the Landlord has submitted that under Sec.25 of the Act, scope of revisional Court is very much limited and Court cannot go beyond the scope. It was further submitted that when no question of law is involved warranting interference, the Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the appellate authorities based on facts.