HEMAVATHIAMMAL Vs. VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st petitioner is the tenant. Having suffered by the orders of eviction by both the Authorities below, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders.

(2.) THE respondents filed an application for eviction in R. C. O. P. N o. 8 of 1990 on the ground of wilful default, owner's occupation and sub-letting. THE Rent Controller though rejected their prayer on the ground of owner's occupation, ordered eviction on the other two grounds. THE Appellate Authority, in the appeal filed by the tenant, the petitioner herein, though held that the tenant is not liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting, confirmed the eviction on the ground of wilful default. Now, the present revision by the tenant is as against the order of the Appellate authority confirming the finding with reference to the wilful default.

(3.) THERE is no finding with reference to this contention of the tenant on the strength of the evidence through RW1 and Ex. R6. In fact, no evidence was let in by the landlords in contra.