Provisions of C.P.C. not applicable to proceedings under rent control Act.

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 mothers 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 further averments of the petition filed by the landlord/respondent herein before the Rent Controller are that, she herself is an occupant of a landed building at 45, Kandaswamy Koil Street, Perambur Barracks,Madras-12, and has taken up her residence along with her sister R.Banumathi which fell to the share of her sister in the aforementioned partition; that for herself, she does not own any other property in the city of Madras; that herself, her husband and two daughters were carrying on their life at her sisters residence with great difficulties and inconvenience and without any comfort; that unless in the above circumstances, the revision petitioners/tenants are vacated, she would be subjected to still greater hardships in the time to come and would pray the Rent Controller for eviction of the revision petitioners/tenants.

4. In the counter filed by the respondents/petitioners, they would state that petitioner is not the landlady; that they were not in the habit of paying any rent to the petitioner; that they have been paying the rent only to her mother Dakshayini Ammal every month and the said rents used to be received by her that they were only tenants under Dakshayini Ammal and not under the petitioner/ respondent and there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between themselves and the petitioner; that the averment that the petition is residing in her sisters house is false and incorrect and is one intended for the purpose of eviction of the lawful tenants; that the respondent/ petitioner is already in occupation of her own house and the petition is not on merit and has been filed on mala fide intentions to evict these revision petitioners some how or other, and would ultimately pray to dismiss the eviction petition with costs.

5. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by parties and on further consideration of the legal position, the Rent Controller appreciating the evidence placed on record in his own way ultimately arrived at the conclusion to allow the application filed by the respondent herein, testifying the validity of which the appellants herein have preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, in R.C.A.No.183 of 1996 and the said court also confirming the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller, ordering the evi