ARUMUGHACHAMY NADAR Vs. DEIVANAIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R. C. O. P. No. 8 of 1993, on the file of Rent controller (Principal District Munsif), Sankarankoil, is the revision petitioner herein, which is one under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India .

(2.) SINCE caveat was entered by the landlord, even at the time when the revision came up for admission, I heard the entire matter.

(3.) IT may be stated that this revision has been filed only to delay the trial of the rent control proceedings by the Rent Controller, which was initiated five years back. IT was not stated even by the tenant that he was not aware of the document or that he was not in possession of the same. He did not think of producing the same at the time when the counter was filed, or at the time when P. W. 1 was examined. Not even one questioned was put to p. W. 1 when she was in the box. The long delay in producing the document shows the lack of good faith on the part of the petitioner.