The court held that the findings of the lower courts were perverse and illegal and interfered with the orders of the lower courts, allowing the eviction of the tenants.

1. Animadverting upon the common judgment and decrees dated 19.12.2005 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Coimbatore, in R.C.A.Nos.70 and 71 of 2005 in confirming the fair and decreetal orders dated 05.04.2005 passed by the learned District Munsif (Rent Controller), Coimbatore in RCOP Nos.102 and 111 of 2003, these two civil revision petitions are focused by the landlords.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two revision petitions would run thus:

(i) The revision petitioners/landlords filed the RCOP No.111 of 2003 seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants, initially on the grounds of sub-letting and change of user by invoking Sections 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and subsequently got the RCOP amended by incorporating the additional two grounds, viz., default in payment of rent and act of waste by invoking Sections 10(2)(i), and 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The matter was contested.

(ii) Whereas the respondents/tenants filed the RCOP No.102 of 2003 under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rent in court.

(iii) During the joint enquiry, on the side of the revision petitioners/landlords, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P30 were marked. On the side of the respondents/tenants, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked and the Court documents Exs.C1 and C2 also were marked.

(iv) Ultimately, the Rent controller allowed the RCOP No.102 of 2003 filed by the tenants for deposit of rent in court and dismissed the RCOP No.111 of 2003 filed by the landlords rejecting all the grounds.

(v) Aggrieved by the orders of the Rent Controller, the landlords preferred appeals in RCA.Nos.70 and 71 of 2005, for nothing but to be dismissed.

(vi) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the courts below, these two revisions have been filed by the landlords more on less on similar grounds.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus:

(i) Both the courts below fell into error in ignoring the factum of the premises having been sub-let by the original partners, viz., B.Md.Kassim and Mrs.Rahmath Kasim (R2 and R3 herein) in favour of two persons viz., Kandasamy and Shanmugam (R5 and R6 herein). Even as per Ex.R7, a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was paid by the said Kandasamy and Shanmugam in favour of the original partners, which demonstrates that they sold their business in favour of the aforesaid two persons and thereby it tant-amounts to subletting the demised premises. But both the courts below failed to address themselves to the relevant facts and apply the correct proposition of law and accordingly, their findings are perverse.

(ii) The tenant himself invoked Section 8(5) of the Act and sought permission to deposit the rent. Whereupon, the Rent Controller ordered that petition with a direction that a sum of Rs.35,125/- per month should be paid, taking into account the subsequent development to the effect that the landlords filed the RCOP for fixation of rent and in that the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.35,125/-per month. In fact as against such fixation of fair rent, appeal was filed only by the landlords for enhancement of the rent fixed by the Rent Controller. In the meantime, the tenants accepted the fixation of fair rent i.e.,Rs.35,125/-fixed as fair rent per month and for about 10 months, they were also depositing the same in court. Subsequently, they once again committed default in paying the rent and that they were not even regular in paying the sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as earlier agreed between the parties.

(iii) As such, there were ups and downs in the quantum o