AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swamikkannu, J.—The point that has been stressed on behalf of the revision petitioners herein is that for about 18 years the landlord had
been accepting the rent that had been sent by Money order by the sub-tenant who is the second respondent before the Rent Controller and as
such now the respondent herein cannot be heard to say that the sub-tenancy had been properly appreciated and upheld by the Rent Controller and
the appellate authority. The point that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the concurrent finding that had been arrived at
by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority can be disturbed under the provisions of S. 25 of the special enactment. It is seen
that no material is available so as to disturb the said concurrent finding. There is absolutely no material on behalf of the revision petitioners to show
that Ex.P18 series (the money order coupons) recognise the sub-tenancy. Such a kind of argument without proper evidence cannot in any way
substantiate the point raised on behalf of the revision petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the learned Rent Controller
as well as the learned Appellate Authority have properly arrived at a conclusion relating to this aspect, and that the fact that the second respondent
had been sending the rent through Ex.P18 series disclosing his name as the sender in those money order coupons does not by itself confer the right
that the second respondent should be held to have been recognised as a tenant by the landlady, the respondent herein. On a careful and anxious
consideration of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority did go through all the evidence advanced
before it and it had all reasons to confirm the finding relating to the sub-tenancy that had been arrived at by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore,
the confirmation by the learned Appellate Authority of the legal ground for eviction, viz., sub-tenancy has been established as seen from the clear
finding regarding the point relating to that aspect framed by the Appellate Authority. There is absolutely no material available which warrants
interference under S. 25 of the special enactment. There are no merits in this civil revision petition. Hence the civil revision petition is dismissed with
costs.