R MURUGANANDHAM Vs. J NOOR MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise out of concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and concurrent orders rejecting the prayer of the tenant to deposit the rent into Court.

(2.) LEARNED Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) AT the outset, it is contended on behalf of the tenants that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents with regard to the monthly rent payable. According to the petitioner, the monthly rent was only Rs.2,000/- However, according to the respondents, the monthly rent was Rs.3,250/- In order to show that the monthly rent was only Rs.2,000/-, the petitioner filed the ledgers maintained in the course of his business, from the year 1995-1996 upto the year 2001-2002, as Exhibits R-21 to R-34. Drawing my attention to these exhibits, Mr. P. Velliappan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the accounts books or ledgers maintained in the course of the business of the petitioner were filed before the Court below and their authenticity was not disputed, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ought not to have given a finding that the rent was Rs.3,250/-