KODI IDI KONDAIYAN CHETTIAR Vs. P SIVASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/landlord who failed in his attempt in getting the order of eviction has filed the above revisions.

(2.) THE petitioner/landlord filed the petitions in r. CO. P. Nos. 12 of 1988 and 5 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent controller/district Munsif, Srivilliputtur on the ground that the respondents/tenants had not paid the rent with respect to their respective premises in question and so such non-payment amounts to wilful default and they are liable for eviction. THE respondents though had admitted that they entered into tenancy with respect to the properties in question,>wned by the petitioner, and in 1986 the Government removedthesuperstructures,as theywere put upinporombokeland. THEreafter, it cannot be construed that the respondents are the tenants, though they themselves put up the superstructures in the said land and got'b'memos from the Government. THE Rent Controller accepting the case of the tenants rejected the petitions as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, after 1986. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed appeals in R. C. A. Nos. 4 of 1990 and 15 of 1988 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/sub-Judge, Srivilliputtur. THE appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and rejected the appeals. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above revisions.

(3.) ADOPTING the said meaning, the Apex Court in Ghanshiam das v. Debt Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1998 has observed that the question as to what is a'building'must always be aquestion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.