G BALASUNDARAM Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING failed before the Authorities below under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the sub-tenant has filed this Civil Revision Petition against the concurrent eviction order passed by the said Authorities against him as well as the Chief Tenant, who was 1st Respondent in the R.C.O.P.

(2.) ACTUALLY speaking, the 1st Respondent did not even file the first appeal. R.C.A. No. 4 of 1995 was filed only by the petitioner herein. The eviction order that was passed was on two grounds, viz. wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act and sub-letting under S. 10(2)(ii) (A) of the Act.

(3.) HOWEVER, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 landlords points out that even though respondents 1 and 2 in the R.C.O.P. filed counter statements opposing the petitioners' claim, both of them remained ex parte at the time of the trial and the 1st Respondent in the R.C.O.P. also did not file any first appeal against the original eviction order passed in the R.C.O.P. While so, he relies on the relevant observations in K.K. Chart v. R.M. Seshadri AIR 1973 S.C. 1311 Paragraph 27) and Hiralal Mool Chand Doshi v. Barot Ramanlal Ranchhoddas (1993) 2 SCC 458 (Paragraphs 14 and 29)). He also submits that in an unreported Judgment dated 24.1.1997 in Padmini Jayasundar v. N.S. Chandrasekaran (C.R.P. No. 3355 of 1994) (Since reported in 1997-1-L.W. 535) S.S. Subramani, J. of this Court has held that (1978) I M.L.J. 79 = 91 L.W. 122 ( Supra ) is no longer good law in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court.