A MARAPPAN Vs. NAGARATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.No.1929 of 1997 has arisen out of an order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, (Subordinate Judge) Erode, dated 22.7.1996 in R.A.No.7 of 1993, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.6.1993 in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 1992, on the file of the District Munsif, Erode.

(2.) THE respondent landlady filed an eviction petition R.C.O.P.No.26 of 1992 on four grounds, namely, wilful default, sub-letting waste, damages and different user. But the Rent Controller found that the landlady failed to prove the other grounds except the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the eviction order only on the ground of wilful default. He reversed the finding with reference to the sub-letting. He also considered the other grounds rejected the contention of the landlady. Hence, the aggrieved tenant has filed the above civil revision petition.

(3.) BOTH the courts below have come to the conclusion that the rent paid from 1990 was Rs.1,000 and not Rs.500. Therefore, from such conclusions they straight-away found that there was filful default. Prima facie this inference is incorrect.