Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. - (1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner, who has suffered an order of eviction before the Appellate authority.
(2.) THE landlord had filed R.C.O.P. No.121 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tirunelveli on the grounds of willful default and owners occupation. The respondents herein are the landlord, who are the owners of the premises in which the petitioner herein is a tenant. By an order dated 18/8/2001, R.C.O.P. was dismissed by the Principal Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tirunelveli. Against which an appeal by the respondents herein was filed in R.C.A. No.43 of 2001 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who passed an order on 23/6/2004 allowing the R.C.O.P. and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision has been filed.
(3.) IT is pointed out by the revision petitioner, who is the tenant that in R.C.O.P, the schedule of property is described as 18 x 50 feet land and the temporary shed on that and in R.C.O.P. itself, in paragraph 7, the landlords have admitted that the tenants had put up a tin shed and a thatched roof shed and got assessment in their names. The said assessment was cancelled subsequently at the instance of the landlord. The landlords had pleaded that they wanted to remove the thatched shed and the so called temporary shed and put up a pucca structure in the place for which they want the tenant to be evicted from the premises.;