M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP (NPD) No. 2898/2013, by which the High Court has allowed the said revision application preferred by the respondents herein ­ original defendants, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: That one Dr. Sanjeevi and his wife Mrs. Porkodi, the earlier owner of the suit premises in question had executed a power of attorney dated 01.11.2016 in the name of the appellant herein and in respect of the said property. That by way of rental agreement dated 23.05.2007, the appellant let out the premises in question to original respondent no.1 herein ­ Bala Venkatram (now dead and represented through legal heirs) for running 'Best Mark Super Market' from June, 2007 to July, 2009 on a monthly rent of Rs.11,000/. That an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/ was paid by way of security. That the rent was payable on 7 th day of every English calendar month. That the appellant ­ landlady filed an eviction suit on the ground of subletting as well as on the ground of arrears of rent against the respondents herein ­ original defendants ­ Bala Venkatram and another under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in the Court of District Munsiff, Pollachi. According to the landlady the rent was initially paid by original defendant no.1 ­ Bala Venkatram till October, 2007. It was the case on behalf of the landlady that upon default in payment of rent and noticing a change in the name as well as ownership of the shop in the tenanted premises from 'Best Mark Super Market' to 'Amutham Super Market', she made enquiries and discovered that not only there was a change in the name but a complete change of hand from original defendant ­ Bala Venkatram to respondent no.2 ­ Shahu Hameed which also on the face of it was a gross breach of the rent agreement. According to the landlady, the subletting was evident from the Certificate of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Tax Department. Therefore, the landlady issued a legal notice to original defendant ­ Bala Venkatram pointing out the said breaches and called upon him to collect balance amount from the advance payment deposited after adjusting the arrears of rent and handover possession of the tenanted premises within 15 days failing which the appropriate legal action would be taken. There was no reply to the legal notice from respondent no.1 ­ original defendant no.1. Therefore, the landlady, the appellant herein, filed R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2008 for decree of eviction on the ground of subletting and arrears of rent. 2.1 The suit was resisted by original defendant no.1 ­ the original tenant by filing a written counter. It was stated that the landlady has received the rent till December, 2007 and that the first respondent has no necessity to get the permission from the landlady for running business in any other name. It was the case on behalf of original respondent no.1 ­ the original tenant that since the landlady was trying to evict the respondents, they filed O.S. No. 122/2008 for permanent injunction. According to the first respondent ­ the original tenant, they were running 'Amutham Super Market' in the suit property. According to the original tenant there were many branches, namely, 'Amutham Jewellery, Amutham Foods, Amutham Electronics, Amutham Textiles etc. According to the original tenant since the respondents refused to give the business in the name of the landlady, she filed eviction petition with an ulterior motive. A similar written counter was filed on behalf of original respondent no.2 ­ subtenant. 2.2 That the learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady preferred R.C.A. No. 1 of 2012. That the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal in part. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority passed the eviction decree on the ground of subletting only and therefore allowed the petition filed under Sections 10(2) (i) and 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) of the Act. However, dismissed the petition filed under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act ­ wastage and material alteration of the premises. That the original tenant ­ Bala Venkatram died. Therefore, the legal heirs of the original tenant ­ Bala Venkatram and the second respondent ­ subtenant preferred the revision application before the High Court. That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said revision application and has quashed and set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court in quashing and setting aside the eviction decree on the ground of subletting, the landlady has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) Shri Aniruddha Joshi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff ­ landlady has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the eviction decree on the ground of subletting. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that the landlady has not established and proved the subletting by the original tenant in favour of respondent no.2 herein ­ sub tenant. 3.1 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff that the finding recorded by the High Court that the landlady has failed to establish and prove the subletting by original respondent no.1 in favour of original respondent no.2 is contrary to the evidence on record. It is vehemently submitted that when the first appellate authority on appreciation of evidence specifically found that there was a sub letting of the premises by original respondent no.1 in favour of original respondent no.2, the same was not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 3.2 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff that there were ample material/evidence on record, such as, sales tax certificate, licence of the shop which stood in the name of original respondent no.2 which establish and prove the subletting by the original tenant ­ respondent no.1 in favour of subtenant ­ original respondent no.2. It is submitted that the aforesaid documents/evidence on record have not at all been considered by the High Court. 3.3 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff that the High Court ought to have appreciated that though the original tenant ­ respondent no.1 in his crossexamination set up a case that he was a partner in the business run by respondent no.2, however, no document was placed on record to show the partnership. 3.4 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff that as all the ingredients of sub letting are established and proved by the landlady, such as, parting with possession of the tenancy in favour of respondent no.2 with exclusive rights of possession and that such parting with possession has been done without the consent of the landlady, the landlady filed an eviction petition. ;