S DINAKAR Vs. PARVATHI SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THIS revision has been directed against the order passed in M. P. Nos. 39 0f 2009 and 40 of 2009 in RCA No. 391 of 2008 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Before the Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner herein had filed M. P. No. 39 of 2009 to recall P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and M. P. No. 40 of 2009 to reopen the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. The learned Appellate Authority after giving due consideration to the submissions made by both sides, after coming to a definite conclusion that the sufficient opportunity has already been given and availed by the revision petitioner in cross examining the P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, had dismissed the petitions holding that the petitions are devoid of merits, which necessitated the tenant/revision petitioner to approach this Court by way of this revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that originally the respondent had filed R. C. O. P. for additional accommodation and thereafter she took a stand that she required the building for own use and occupation. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that on the said issue, the learned trial Judge had framed an issue and dealt with in detail which is now before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The fact remains that P. W. 1 is 82 years old lady and her son P. W. 2 is 62 years old retired Bank Employee. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority while disposing of M. P. Nos. 39 and 40 of 2009 in RCA No. 391 of 2008 had observed that the revision petitioner had already elaborately cross examined P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 in detail. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in M. P. Nos. 39 and 40 of 2009 in RCA. No. 391 of 2008.