The court emphasized the importance of consistent statements and timely proceedings in rent control cases, and recognized the landlords' genuine need for additional accommodation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in RCA.No.18 of 2020, confirming the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, in RCOP.No.105 of 2005.)

1. This revision petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli, in RCA.No.18 of 2010, dated 19.07.2021, confirming the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif / Rent Controller, Tiruchirappalli, in RCOP.No.105 of 2005, dated 05.03.2010.

2. The revision petitioner is a tenant and he is running a Rewinding Shop in the respondents' / landlords' premises at Uraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. He was inducted as tenant in the year 1998 and he surrendered the building in the year 2000. Thereafter, a lease agreement was entered into in respect of the building till February, 2002. The petitioner / tenant filed a suit against the respondents / landlords before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, in O.S.No. 365 of 2002 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents / landlords from dispossessing the petitioner without following the due process of law. Subsequent to the suit, the respondents / landlords filed RCOP.No.105 of 2005, before the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, u/s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to vacate the petitioner on the ground that the property is required for their additional accommodation. After elaborate hearing, the RCOP was allowed in favour of the respondents / landlords on 05.03.2010. As against the order passed by the Rent Controller in RCOP.No.105 of 2005, dated 05.03.2010, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, in RCA.No.18 of 2010. The appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by its fair and decreetal order dated 19.07.2021. As against the concurrent findings, the petitioner has moved the instant revision.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed u/s. 10(3)(a), instead of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not maintainable and that the respondents / landlords have not established their case for additional accommodation. However, without considering the provisions of law, the Courts below have erroneously passed an order in favour of the respondents. He further submitted that the petitioner / tenant had already surrendered a portion of the property in favour of the respondents. There is no necessity for any additional accommodation by the respondents and in fact, the respondents have sublet the available space to third party for running a telephone booth and there is no bona fide on the part of the respondents in their plea seeking the land for additional accommodation.

4. He further submitted that pending the appeal in RCA.No.18 of 2010, the petitioner has filed three interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.16 to 18 of 2021 to reopen the case and for receiving additional documents. The said applications were dismissed by the appellate authority on 14.07.2021 and within five days, the appeal itself was dismissed, thereby, the petitioner was prevented from producing additional evidence.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and also considering the grounds raised in the revision petition and also the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to entertain this civil revision petition for more than one reasons.

Ground No.1:-

6. The revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1998. After the period of lease, the petitioner has also surrendered the premises in the