1998 (9) TMI 677

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitions. 2.Gomathi Ammal, the respondent in these appeals, is the owner of a three-storied building in the city of Nagerkoil. In its first and second floors she runs a lodging house; and the rooms in the ground floor are occupied by different persons, including the appellants herein, as tenants. In the year 1982, she filed separate petitions before the Rent Controller for eviction of the thr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tition before this Court contending that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the grounds for eviction under Sections 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b) of the Act were distinct and mutually exclusive. Accepting the above contention this Court set aside the eviction order and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration on the available evidence. In the meantime, the other te....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stha and rasul Ahmed filed two revision petitions and the respondent in her turn, filed two similar petitions against the dismissal of her other two appeals. Co-optex, however, did not file any appeal and vacated the premises in its occupation. By a common judgment the High Court allowed the revision petitions of the respondent and dismissed those of the appellants Rasul Ahmed and G. Sastha. The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng house was genuine. 5.Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent we are of the view that the factual aspects of the case need not be gone into as these appeals must be allowed for the simple reason that in disposing of the revision petitions the High Court did not at all take into consideration the following proviso, which finds place under clause (e) of Section 10....