MATHEWS Vs. P KANCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the fair and final order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore in R.C.A.No.10 of 2015 confirming the Fair and Final Order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Coimbatore in RCOP.No.129 of 2011.

(2.) The respondent-landlady filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 2011 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. The Principal District Munsif/Rent Controller, Coimbatore, ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default and owners occupation, against which, the tenant has preferred a R.C.A.No.10 of 2015. The Principal Subordinate Judge/Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore has not accepted the finding of the Rent Controller in respect to the tenant committing a wilful default and eviction ordered on the basis of wilful default has been set aside, but confirmed the eviction on the basis of owners occupation, against which the present revision has been filed by the tenant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady would submit that even though she has not filed any separate revision for dismissing the eviction on the ground of wilful default, she can contest the same in the revision petition filed by the tenant. For this, he relied on a decision reported in in M.R.M.Duraiappa Nadar Vs. P.Thirupurasundariammal, 1989 1 MadLJ 89. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that he does not have any quarrel over the same. He also advanced his arguments on both grounds. Considering the statement made by the Respondent/landlady and also relying on a decision reported in in M.R.M.Duraiappa Nadar Vs. P.Thirupurasundariammal, 1989 1 MadLJ 89, I am of the view, the respondent-landlady is entitled to put forth her case also on the ground of wilful default.