SAKUNTHALA Vs. MRS A DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 10.12.1997 made in R.C.A.No.183 of 1996 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 8.8.1995 made in R.C.O.P.No.1384 of 1992 by the Rent Controller and XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, in ordering the eviction of the revision petitioners herein from the premises concerned on an application filed by the respondent herein under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(2.) THE contents of the petition filed by the landlady under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the R.C.O.P.No.1384 of 1992 are that, the petition mentioned properties and some other properties were originally belonging to her mother's father, one Chidambaram Pillai and the said 4 properties fell to the share of her mother Dakshayini Ammal; that her three sisters and herself had a partition of the said properties among themselves and the premises located at Vadamalai Pillai Street, Kosapet, Madras, the petition schedule property herein fell to the share of the petitioner thus, herself becoming the absolute owner of the same; that the first, second and third revision petitions are the tenants of different portions of the petitions schedule property respectively paying a rent of Rs.120, Rs.120 and Rs.210 besides having separate and common facilities and the rents are to be paid in every English calendar month.

(3.) THE learned counsel would continue to argue that the relationship of the landlord and the tenant has been denied in this case by the tenants under Sec.10 of the Act for eviction of the tenants, that if the relationship of landlord and tenants is denied, issue must be framed to that effect and decided and without deciding the said issue as a preliminary issue, deciding the other issues, is irregular and both the courts below have committed serious errors in not framing the issues and deciding the subject matter accordingly.