T G BALASUNDARAM Vs. JOTHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant in R. C. O. P. No. 28 of 1993 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Kancheepuram, who had lost his defence both before the learned Rent Controller as well as before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R. C. A. No. 2 of 2004, is the revision petitioner herein. R. C. O. P. No. 28 of 1993 was filed by the revision petitioner's own sister Jothibai Ammal as a landlord in respect of the petition schedule property for eviction on the ground of denial of title, wilful default and owners' occupation. The petition was resisted by the respondent/tenant, the revision petitioner herein by way of counter alleging that there was no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) BEFORE the Trial Court, P. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined. Exs. A. 1 to A. 14 were marked on the side of the petitioner/landlord. D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. B. 1 to B. 27 were marked on the side of the respondent/tenant.

(3.) AFTER giving due consideration to both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller, Kancheepuram, has come to a conclusion that the petitioner/landlord is entitled for an order of eviction on the ground of denial of title and allowed the petition by giving two months time for the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal in R. C. A. No. 2 of 2004 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, who after due deliberation to the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent has held that there is no materials to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, and accordingly dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller in R. C. O. P. No. 28 of 1993, against which, the tenant has preferred this revision.