Judgment :- (Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order of the Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil dated 07.12.2002 in R.C.A No.5 of 2001 confirming the order in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1992, dated 4.1.2002 on the file of Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif Court), Nagercoil.) This Revision Petition is preferred against the order of Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil in R.C.A.No.5 of 2001 dated 7.12.2002 confirming the Order in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. The order of eviction was passed under Sections 10(2) (1); 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2) of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as "the Act"). 2. During the pendency of Rent Control Petition in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1992, the tenant/First Respondent died, his legal heirs have been impleaded as Respondents 3 to 7. Respondents 3 to 6, legal heirs of the Deceased Tenant, are the Revision Petitioners. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1992. 3. Facts necessitated for disposal of this Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus; - The demised property relates to the Building NMC No.24/2-194D in K.P.Road, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari Distict. The building No.194D was leased to the First Respondent by the Petitioner. The First Respondent was running Hotel Business in the name and style of "Hotel Thaheer". The initial rent was Rs.650/- per month for a period of two years from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1990 and thereafter at Rs.750/- per month for a further period of two years from 1.1.91 to 31.12.1992. As per the terms of the lease, it was agreed that the First Respondent is to directly conduct the Hotel Business and that he would not sublease the same to anybody else. The First Respondent has also undertaken to pay electricity charges. With a view to harass the Petitioner, the First Respondent has filed O.S.No.436 of 1990 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil for Permanent Injunction restraining the landlord and his men from interfering with the possession and running of the Hotel Business. The First Respondent has paid rent only till December 1989 and thereafter he has been depositing the rent in O.S.No.436 of 1990 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. The First Respondent has paid rent only till December 1989 and thereafter he has been depositing the rent in O.S.No.436 of 1990 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. The First Respondent has committed wilful default in not paying the rent for a period of 8 months at the rate of Rs.750/- per month from July 1991 to February 1992. 4. Further, the First Respondent himself is not running the hotel from March 1990 and he has been permanently residing in his native place at Thengaipattinam. Without the knowledge and written consent of the Landlord, the First Respondent/Tenant has subleased the Hotel "Thaheer" to the Second Respondent, who is now conducting the business. The First Respondent has been getting water supply from the neighbouring owner one, Viyagappan. The First Respondent has changed direction of the waste water and caused substantial damage to the property. Hence, Eviction Petition was filed on the grounds of; (i) wilful default in payment of rent; (ii) Sublease ;(iii) causing damage to the demise property under Sections 10(2)(1); 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2) of the Act. 5. Denying the averments in the Petition, the Fourth Respondent - Noohu Kannu has filed the counter statement contending that the Petitioner has been unreasonably enhancing the rent in the year 1988. The Petitioner insisted for enhancement of rent during the month of December 1989. A settlement was arrived and rent for the period ending December 1989 amounting to Rs.1,220/- was paid by the First Respondent and further enhancement was also aggrieved by the parties. The said enhancement was agreed by the parties to maintain the building and to get water connection from Nagercoil Municipality for the purpose of business at his expenses. Since the Petitioner was interfering with the First Respondent's possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the First Respondent had filed O.S.No.436/1990 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil for Permanent Injunction. In the said case, the First Respondent had been regularly depositing the rent. The Petitioner had engaged his counsel and had also withdrawn the arrears of rent deposited by the First Respondent by filing cheque application. There is no arrears of rent. The First Respondent neither sublet the premises nor committed any wilful default nor caused damage to the building. 6. Before the Rent Control Court, the Landlord - George Vincent has examined as P.W.1. On the side of the Landlord Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. There is no arrears of rent. The First Respondent neither sublet the premises nor committed any wilful default nor caused damage to the building. 6. Before the Rent Control Court, the Landlord - George Vincent has examined as P.W.1. On the side of the Landlord Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Fourth Respondent was examined in Appeal – R.C.A.No.5 of 2001 as R.W.1. Thereafter R.W.1 has not turned up for further Chief-examination and Cross-examination. Hence, the Respondent's evidence was closed by the Order of the Court. The Eviction was ordered on the ground of wilful default, Sublease and damage to the demised property. 7. Aggrieved over the order of Eviction, the Respondents have preferred R.C.A.No.5 of 2001 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of Eviction, pointing out that despite opportunities the Revision Petitioner/Fourth Respondent was not present before the Rent Control Court for completion of Chief-examination and Cross-examination. 8. As against the concurrent findings of the Authorities below, the Revision Petitioners/Respondents 3 to 7 have preferred this Revision. Vehemently assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has failed to see that the Tenants have filed the Re-open Petition on 4.1.2001 and that without passing an order in the re-open Petition, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has simply passed the order of Eviction. He further contended that Re-open Petition was filed in C.F.S.R.No.2133/2001, which paper was not available in the Court and a complaint was made to the Principal District Judge, Nagercoil regarding the missing of the paper in C.F.S.R.No.2133/01 which was filed for reopening the case. Drawing the attention of the Court to Rule 12 of the Act, it is submitted that whenever any application is filed before the Rent Controller the same has to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The order of Eviction is attacked mainly on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to the Revision Petitioners for adducing their evidence in support of their contention. 9. Counter arguments are that the Rent Control Petition is of the year 1992 and the Tenants have filed the Revision Petition only to drag on the proceedings in order to be in occupation of the demised premises. 9. Counter arguments are that the Rent Control Petition is of the year 1992 and the Tenants have filed the Revision Petition only to drag on the proceedings in order to be in occupation of the demised premises. It is further submitted that despite taking several adjournments for more than one year, the Fourth Respondent / R.W.1 has purposely kept himself away from the box. Opposing the arguments of the Revision Petitioners, it is submitted that the Revision Petitioners/Tenants cannot seek for reopening the case as a matter of right, since the provisions of C.P.C cannot be invoked as a matter of right in the Rent Control proceedings. 10. Considering the submission of both sides, the orders of the Authorities below and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Revision Petition: - i) Whether the concurrent findings and order of Eviction is liable to be interfered with on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to the Revision Petitioners? ii) Whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in holding that no reopening Petition was filed on 4.1.01? and Whether on that ground the order of Eviction is to be reversed under this Revisional Jurisdiction? iii) Whether the concurrent order of Eviction passed by the authorities below suffers from perversity, warranting interference? 11. Before adverting to the factual aspects, much argued contention by the Revision Petitioners is that no opportunity was afforded to the Revision Petitioners. On perusal of Notes Paper in R.C.O.P.No.18/92, it is seen that P.W.1 – Landlord was examined on 19.2.98. His Chief-examination was completed on 17.9.98. Thereafter, further Cross-examination of P.W.1 was continually adjourned. The cross examination of P.W.1 was done in piecemeal. After 14.11.98, the cross examination of P.W.1 was repeatedly adjourned. On 5.4.99 I.A.No.347/99 was filed by the respondent to set aside the exparte order passed against the Third and Sixth Respondents. I.A.No.347/99 was dismissed. Again the case was adjourned for one reason or other. Again I.A.No.917/99 was filed to set aside the exparte order passed against the Third and Sixth Respondents. That application was allowed and exparte order against Third and Sixth Respondents was set aside. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for filing counter by the Third and Sixth Respondents. Memo was filed on behalf of the Third and Sixth Respondents adopting the counter filed by the First Respondent. That application was allowed and exparte order against Third and Sixth Respondents was set aside. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for filing counter by the Third and Sixth Respondents. Memo was filed on behalf of the Third and Sixth Respondents adopting the counter filed by the First Respondent. In view of the exparte order being set aside against the Third and Sixth Respondents, the case was posted for further evidence of the Petitioner/Landlord (if any). On 20.7.2000 Petitioners evidence was closed. 12. From 3.8.2000 the case was repeatedly adjourned for examination of R.W.1/Fourth Respondent. On 24.8.2000, Fourth Respondent evidence in part was recorded and thereafter the case was repeatedly adjourned to various dates. R.W.1/Fourth Respondent has not turned up for completion of his Chief-examination and also for Cross-examination. Hence Respondents evidence was closed by the order of the Court on 7.12.2000. Petitioners arguments were heard on 14.12.2000. The case was adjourned to 21.12.2000 and on that date the Respondents have not come forward to submit their arguments. Hence, the Petition was posted for orders on 4.1.2001. On 4.1.2001 the Petition was allowed with costs and eviction was ordered. One month time was granted for handing over vacant possession. From the above conduct of the Respondents, it is clear that the Respondents were adopting delay tactics to drag on the further proceedings. Repeatedly adjournments were taken for one reason or other. Viewing in the light of the conduct of the parties, the contention that the respondents had no opportunity for adducing the evidence has no merits. 13. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioners/Respondents has submitted that even on 4.1.2001, the Revision Petitioners have filed a Petition to reopen the case in C.F.S.R.No.2133/01 and it was neither returned nor numbered. It is vehemently contended that on 4.1.2001 a Petition had been filed which was not taken note of by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in its Order in R.C.A.No.5/2001. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has observed: - "mnj neuj;jpy; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; nkYk; rhl;rpak; mspf;f ntz;Lbkd;W kD xd;Wk; bra;jjhf fhzg;gltpy;iy. nkYk; mth;fs; thjq;fs; vGg;gpf; bfhs;s xU tha;g;g[ ntz;Lbkd;W xUkD jhf;fy; bra;jjhft[k; fhzg;gltpy;iy. It is vehemently contended that on 4.1.2001 a Petition had been filed which was not taken note of by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in its Order in R.C.A.No.5/2001. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has observed: - "mnj neuj;jpy; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; nkYk; rhl;rpak; mspf;f ntz;Lbkd;W kD xd;Wk; bra;jjhf fhzg;gltpy;iy. nkYk; mth;fs; thjq;fs; vGg;gpf; bfhs;s xU tha;g;g[ ntz;Lbkd;W xUkD jhf;fy; bra;jjhft[k; fhzg;gltpy;iy. Mfnt mth;fs; ntz;Lnkd;nw Mh;.rp.X.gp kDtpy; fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M$uhfhky; mij ehl;fs; ePl;l xU Vw;ghL bra;jjhf bjupatUfpwJ." Above findings are attacked on the ground that the same is factually incorrect, pointing out that the application was filed to reopen the case for which reliance is placed upon C.F.S.R.No.2133/01 and that Petition filed by the Revision Petitioners was found to be missing. 14. The above contention much harped by the Revision Petitioners has no force and unsustainable. If the Revision Petitioners have filed any such Petition for reopening the case on the date of Judgment i.e. on 4.1.2001, the same ought to have been brought to the notice of the Rent Controller or the same should have been brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. For the first time stating that such reopen Petition was filed on 4.1.2001 in C.F.S.R.No.2133/01, complaint is said to have been made to the Principal District Judge, Nagercoil on 20.1.2003. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order in R.C.A.No.5/01 on 26.2.2001. This Revision in C.R.P.(NPD)No.72 of 2003 was filed on 6.1.2003 and the complaint is said to have been made on 20.1.2003. Obviously there must have been great counselling and deliberations in making such complaint on 20.1.2003. Now, the Xerox copy of the complaint/Petition said to have been preferred before the Principal District Judge, Nagercoil is produced. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners insisted to call for the report on such complaint and the missing of the reopen Petition in C.F.S.R.No.2133/01. No weight could be attached to this contention, nor any such report could be called for, for the reason that no timely complaint was made by the Respondents in the two years. On such allegations, it cannot be held that the Revision Petitioners were deprived of their opportunity to adduce their evidence and that the Re-open Petition filed by them was not properly considered.