(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P.No.181 of 1978 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Salem is the revision petitioner herein.
(2.) LANDLORD filed eviction petition on the ground that building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. According to landlord, petitioner herein is tenant of the building. LANDLORD obtained right over the property as per sale deed dated 15.7.l978 and petitioner also attorned tenancy in his favour from the date of sale deed. Previous owner Ramasubramaniya Mudaliar by registered letter dated 3.8..1978 intimated petitioner about the sale and wanted petitioner to pay rent to respondent herein from the date of sale deed. Petitioner herein did not send any reply. According to landlord, building occupied by tenant is very old and he wanted to demolish the entire building and construct a new terraced building in that place. LANDLORD has submitted .his plan and licence and also demanded vacant possession.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, tenant preferred R.C.A.No.2 of 1995 on the file of appellate authority, Salem. Before appellate authority, an argument was taken that when landlord has not taken a ground for eviction that denial of title is not bona fide. Rent Controller should not have ordered eviction, which is not sought for by landlord. The other ground raised before Rent Controller was also pressed before appellate authority. Revision petitioner was not successful in persuading appellate authority to take a different view. All the findings of Rent Controller were upheld by dismissing the appeal.