Order of rejection enough for interference by High Court.

1. C.R.P.No.2673 of 1996 is against the fair and decretal order in R.C.A.No.5 of 1994, dated 27.8.1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Trichy (Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the order of the District Munsif (Rent Controller), Trichy in R.C.O.P.No.285 of 1986, dated 30.11.1993.

2. C.R.P.No.2674 of 1996 is against the order dated 27.8.1996 in R.C.A.No.6 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Trichy, confirming the order of the District Munsif (Rent Controller) Trichy in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1987, dated 30.11.1993.

3. These two revision petitions arise out of a com-mon order dated 27.8.1996. The petitioner in both the civil revision petitions is the same person i.e., the tenant, in respect of a building. The respondents are also the same persons in both the revision petitions and they are the landlords.

4. R.C.O.P.No.285 of 1986 was filed for eviction on the ground of default, own as well as additional occupation. R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1987 was filed by the tenant for deposit of the rents under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960.

5. The case of the landlords was that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the building bearing door No.57 (Southern Portion) E.B.Road, Trichy-8, on a monthly rent of Rs.300. The rent was paid upto 1985. He committed default from 1.1.1986 to September, 1986. Originally the petitioner became tenant under Mariyayee Ammal. One T.K.Sankaran, agent was collecting the rent. After the death of Mariyayee on 3.4.1986, the petitioner failed to pay the rent. Mariyayee left a will in favour of the respondents on 27.4.1974. The building is required for the oil business of the family. They have no other building in the city of Trichy. Notice was sent on 6.8.1986. It was returned. There is no relation of tenant and landlord between the fourth respondent and Mariyayee.

6. The fourth respondent/S.Ashok Kumar filed a counter. According to him he was not a tenant. The tenant was his brother i.e., Thangaraj, who was paying rent to Mariyayee. From 1.8.1973 to 15.3.1979 rent was paid to the father of the respondents 1 to 3. In 1980 Marayee has received rent from Thangaraj. When rent was sent by Thangaraj to the father of the respondents 1 to 3, it was refused. Hence, Thangaraj petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1987 for depositing the rent into court.

7. The second respondent, the petitioner herein also filed a counter stating that he is the tenant and when the father of the respondents refused to receive the rent, he has filed R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1987. He has deposited the rent in the said case. There is no default in payment of rent. The respondents are not carrying on any business. Therefore, there is no necessity for own or additional accommodation. He has also stated that the rent was only Rs.175 and not Rs.300.

8. The Rent Controller took up both the petitions for eviction as well as deposit of rent together and passed a common order holding that the respondents are entitled for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.285 of 1986 and dismissing the R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1987.

9. The petitioner filed two appeals-before the appellate authority i.e., R.C.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 1994, one against the order of eviction and the other against the order dismissing the petition for deposit. The appellate authority dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the respondent has preferred these two revision petitions.

10. The petition for deposit and the appeal relating to it were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that he is the tenant of the building. The Rent Controller has found that the petitioner is not the tenant and the agreement of tenancy is in favour of his brother one S.Ashok Kumar. The petitioner has never paid the rent to the respondents mother. It has also found that the building was required for own use i.e., for the business of the father carried at Gandhi Market.

11. The appellate authority considered four poi