1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1821 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 M.Haja Najumudeen .. Petitioner Vs. 1.M.J.Sathik Ansari 2.Sehu Mohamed Mohideen .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and decree dated 24.06.2011 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.20 of 2006 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Tuticorin reversing the fair and decretal order dated 01.07.2005 passed in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2003 by the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohanasundaram For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Subbiah For Respondent No.2 : No appearance ORDER The order dated 24.06.2011 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.20 of 2006 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Tuticorin is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam so as to pass an order of eviction on the grounds of wilful default, subletting, acts of waste and owner's occupation, wherein the present revision petitioner and second respondent have been shown as respondents. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence available on record as well as rival pleadings putforth on either side has dismissed R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2003. Against the dismissal order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner as appellant has preferred Rent Control Appeal No.20 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 3. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after hearing both sides and also after evaluating the available evidence on record has found that the first respondent has subleased the demised building in favour of the second respondent and also found that the petitioner has made arrangements to start his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 business in the demised building and ultimately allowed Rent Control Appeal No.20 of 2006 in part and set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2003. Against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the first respondent as revision petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that except the agreement which has been marked as Ex.P.5, the first respondent has not subleased the demised building in favour of the second respondent and the Rent Control Appellate Authority without considering the nature of transaction entered into in between the respondents has erroneously allowed the petition on the ground of subletting and further no acceptable and trustworthy evidence has been forthcoming on the side of the petitioner to prove that the demised building is required for own use and occupation, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority has allowed the petition in question on that ground and therefore viewing from any angle the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner/ landlord has contended that even though acceptable evidence has not been forthcoming with regard to own use and occupation, the first respondent/petitioner/landlord has clearly established subletting and the Rent Control Appellate Authority after evaluating the available evidence on record in that regard has rightly allowed the petition on the ground of subletting and therefore the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be set aside. 6. As stated earlier, the present petition has been filed on the basis of four grounds namely, wilful default, subletting, acts of waste and owner's occupation. 7. The Rent Controller has dismissed the petition in respect of the grounds mentioned therein. But the Rent Control Appellate Authority has allowed the petition on the grounds of subletting as well as owner's occupation. 8. For the purpose of subletting, on the side of the first respondent/petitioner/landlord, Exs.P.3 and P.5 have been filed. Ex.P.3 is a postal acknowledgement card addressed to the second respondent, wherein the address of the demised building has been mentioned. Ex.P.5 is an agreement entered into in between the first respondent and second respondent. If really the demised building has not been subleased to the second respondent, definitely he would not have received notice which has been addressed in the name of the demised building and further in Ex.P.5, it has been clearly mentioned about the transaction alleged to have been entered into in between the respondents. Therefore on the basis of Exs.P.3 and P.5, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the first respondent has subleased the demised building to the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner/landlord has fairly conceded that there is no sufficient evidence in respect of own use and occupation. Except Ex.P.4 no other documents have been marked for the purpose of proving the alleged fact that the demised building is required for own use and occupation. Therefore it is very clear that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting. Under the said circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be confirmed on the ground of subletting. 10. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order of eviction passed in Rent Control Appeal No.20 of 2006 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Tuticorin is confirmed. However the revision petitioner and second respondent are given four months time to vacate the demised building. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.TheRent Control Appellate Authority/ Sub Court, Tuticorin. 2.The Rent Controller/ District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam. Smn rl/3 c- 23.11.2011 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1821 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 10.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/