GANAPATHY Vs. A. KANDASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these revision petitions have to be dismissed in view of the subsequent events which have taken place as a result of a suit for partition which was filed by Anganna Pandaram against two revision petitioners, who are co-owners of the suit property as well as against the tenant.

(2.) FACTS are not in dispute. The suit premises which are business premises, are admittedly owned by three persons Alagu Ramiah and his brother Mailswami and Alganna Pandaram. Alganna Pandaram filed the original suit O.S. 900 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif Palani, for partition and separate possession of his one-third share. The suit was already pending when Alagu Ramiah and Ganpathi had filed separate proceedings for eviction of the tenant in respect of their one-third share each making the claim under Sections 10(3)(a), 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is not necessary to refer to the merits of the decision of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority with regard to these petitioners; but it is sufficient to mention that these petitions have been dismissed.

(3.) NOW it is common ground that the dispute with regard to the partition and separate possession of the property has been settled as between the three co-owners of the property by the decree in the suit in as much as each of them has been held to be entitled to one-third share of the suit property. An appeal, being S.C. 877 of 1981, has been filed by the tenant challenging the decree in so far as it affects him because he has been directed to be evicted. The subject-matter of the appeal is, therefore, only that part of the decree which ordered eviction of the tenant.