ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in R.C.A.No.2 of 2016, dated 18.12.2020 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2012, dated 29.06.2016 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai.

2.Admittedly, the revision petitioner, who is the appellant/respondent is the tenant and the respondent/petitioner is the landlord. The respondent/ landlord has filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2012 against the revision petitioner claiming eviction on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and for own use and occupation under Section 10(3) (iii) of the said Act.

3.During trial before the Rent Controller, the respondent/landlord has examined herself as P.W.1 and her son Umar Farooq as P.W.2 and exhibited 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. The revision petitioner/tenant has examined himself as R.W.1 and two other witnesses Thiru.Arumugam and Thiru.Muthupandi as R.W.2 and R.W.3 respectively and exhibited one document as Ex.R.1.

4.The learned Rent Controller, upon considering the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed an order dated 29.06.2016 allowing the petition and ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and rejected the ground of own use and occupation and thereby, directing the revision petitioner to vacate the petition mentioned premises and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the tenant has filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.2 of 2016 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, on considering the materials placed and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order dated 18.12.2020, dismissing the Rent Control Appeal and thereby confirming the eviction order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2012, dated 29.06.2016. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the tenant has come forward with the present revision.

5.As already pointed out, the tenant alone has challenged the eviction order passed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and since the appeal was dismissed, he has preferred the present revision. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the findings of the Courts below that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent are proper and in accordance with law. ?

6.It is pertinent to mention that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is confined to legality, propriety and correctness of the orders of the Courts below. The revisional Court under Section 25 of the said Act, having supervisory jurisdiction, should not act as if it was exercising the Appellate jurisdiction, by appreciating the evidence, weigh the same and by that process come to a different conclusion and reverse a finding of the fact arrived at by the Courts below. Even if two views are possible with the same set of facts, the revisional Court cannot substitute its own view so as to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Moreover, the power under Section 25 of the said Act is not co- extensive with the power of the appellate Court. Bearing the above legal position in mind, let us consider the case on hand.

7.It is admitted by both the parties that the tenant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance and the same was received by the landlord, that the tenant had been paying monthly rent at Rs.5,000/- earlier and that he is now paying Rs.5,500/- as monthly rent.

8.The case of the respondent/landlord is that the tenant has not paid the rent from 05.06.2011 to 05.01.2012 for seven months, that though the landlord has sent a notice dated 20.10.2011 under Ex.P.12 followed by the re- joinder notice dated 24.1