AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—These two C.R.Ps. have been filed against the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the orders passed
by the Rent Controller.
The revision petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. is the tenant under the respondent/landlord. Admittedly, there are proceedings pending against the
revision petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. From the
orders of Rent Controller, it is clear that there are 9 portions in the house and 8 tenants have vacated, but the petitioner alone did not vacate the
house and the construction activities are also going on after demolition of this portion. The petitioner also has filed a petition to restore the water
connection. That application has been rejected on the ground that the revision petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 349/97 and obtained a stay.
Even prior to that the water supply was disconnected. In spite of that the tenant did not mention anything in that and did not take any steps to
restore. Under these circumstances, the present application to restore water connection is filed only with the intention to protract the matter and to
delay the process of vacating the premises. Having come to such a conclusion, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the plea of the
petitioner. Against that, the present revisions have been filed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate
Authority and contended that with the malafide intention the landlord filed the petitions for eviction; further the landlord has no right to disconnect
the water connection.
Considering the averments made in the C.R.Ps. and also the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate
Authority, it appears that there is no case in favour of the revision petitioner/tenant. The revision petitioner is trying to prolong the matter and to
deny the benefits of the Act to the landlord. No legal ground in favour of the petitioner has been raised and no legal ground has been argued before
this Court. The Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority have come to the right conclusion that the landlord is entitled to an
order of the eviction. There is no illegality in the said order of eviction as confirmed by the appellate authority.
Under these circumstances, both the C.R.Ps. are devoid of merits and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.16550
and 16551 of 2004 are also dismissed.