Interfere by High Court is called for in case of miscarriage of justice.

The tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed by the Rent Controller, Mayiladuthurai in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 1983 and which was confirmed by the appellate authority of Mayiladuthurai on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the premises, has come forward with this revision.

2. The landlord has filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default under Sec.l0(2)(i), requirement of the premises for own use and occupation under Sec.10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and on the ground of subletting without his consent. As far as the ground of wilful default and requirement of the premises for own use and occupation are concerned, the petition has been dismissed by the Rent Controller and there is no appeal against the said order. On the ground of sub-letting, the petitioner in his petition has stated as follows: “The respondent is not personally residing in the premises. He appears to have permitted some third party to reside in the same. Though the respondent would claim the occupant to be a family member, the said assertion, is not correct.” The respondent in his counter as against this allegation, has contended as follows: The ground that the respondent is not residing there is incorrect. The respondent his brother’s wife and family members are residing there. The respondents children are having school education at Mayiladuthurai Town. The plea as if the respondent has sub-let the premises to third party is incorrect.

3. On the above pleadings, the Rent Controller has held that the petitioner has proved the allegation of sub-letting by the respondent and ordered eviction on that ground. The appeal preferred by the tenant was also dismissed by the appellate authority. It is against this order of dismissal of the appeal, the tenant has come forward with this revision.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would argue that concurrent findings have been given by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority and therefore the revision itself is not maintainable and in support of his above contention, the learned counsel relies upon the decisions reported in V.S.KChetti Choultry v. Veerasami (1972)1 M.L.J. 184: A.I.R. 1972 Mad. 303: 85 L.W. 192: 1972 Ren.C.R. 555 and Rajagopala Iyer v. Top In Town Dry Cleaners, (1992)1 M.L.J. 167. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, once the petitioner has established that there was sub-letting by the respondent, it is clear that the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority are legal and proper and therefore, there was no jurisdiction to interfere in the revision under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to entertain the civil revision petition if there are concurrent findings, is not a tenable one if the proved facts on record show that there is a miscarriage of justice. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the power conferred on the High Court under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, may not be as narrow as the Revisional power of the High Court under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is not wide enough to make the High Court, a second court of first appeal. This contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is what has been observed by the Supreme Court while interpreting the scope and ambit of Sec.25 of the Act in the decision reported in M/s.Sri Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253.

5. Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is as follows:

“25. Revision: (1) The High Court may, on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority, call for and examine the record of t