JANAGAVALLI Vs. R BASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 made in M.A. No. 17/1997 on the file of the Principal District Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in confirming the order of eviction dated 24.06.1997 made in HRCOP No. 9/1996 on the file of the Rent Controller at Pondicherry. The above revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1969 as amended by Act 18 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the tenant being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed against him. The parties to the proceedings will be referred to as arrayed before the Rent Controller for the purpose of convenience.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord instituted HRCOP 9/96 on the file of the Rent Controller Pondicherry under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the said Act seeking an order of eviction on the ground that the tenant used the tenanted premises for the purpose other than for which is was leased out. THE application was resisted by the tenant/respondent contending that the tenant is using the tenanted premises only for residence, that the respondent/tenant is employed in the Central Government, that no business is carried on in the tenanted premises, that there is no conversion of the premises, that the pial portion which is available just 4 ft. 4 ft. out of which there is a Thinnai measuring 11/4 ft. 4 ft and that no portion of the premises has been used for the purpose of vending or as a bunk shop. Incidentally, the tenant had denied all the other averments in the eviction petition as a matter of routine. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner/landlord had marked Exhibits A1 to A7 and had examined P.Ws. 1 and 2. T he respondent/tenant had marked Exs.B.1 to B.6 and had examined her father as R.W.1. THE Rent Controller had framed the only point for determination which reads thus: "Whether the respondent has used the premises other than the purpose for which it has been leased out" If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction against the respondent on that ground." This point has been answered in favour of the petitioner/landlord and against the tenant. THE order of eviction has been passed only on that score. THE respondent/tenant preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge (Rent Controller) under Section 23(1) of the said Act. THE Appellate Authority had framed three points for consideration and ultimately dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 22.12.1997 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Being aggrieved, the respondent/tenant has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) THE power of revision which this Court has to exercise is provided for under section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. THE Apex Court has held that the power of revision is exhaustive and the Court could interfere in a revision preferred under Section 25 of the said Act, if on the facts, the authorities below have not applied the provisions of law correctly as provided in the Act or acted with illegality or irregularity. In other words, the exercise of revisibnal jurisdiction by this Court is not limited as provided under Section 115 of the C.P.C.