Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The two revisions came for hearing before Muktadar, J. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the authorities below have no jurisdiction to order for eviction of the revision petitioner to order for eviction of the revision petitioner when they came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner was not the revision petitioner was not the tenant and when under the Rent Control Act the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction only against a tenant. The counsel appearing for the landlord, on the other hand, contended before the learned single Judge that since Ramanujam got himself to be the tenant of the landlord, he is bound by the decision of the authorities below when the order for eviction is passed from the premises after holding that he was not the tenant. Brother Muktadar, J. entertained a doubt whether the authorities below were correct in passing orders of eviction under the Rent Control Act when they gave a finding that the revision petitioner was not the tenant of the landlord and there was no assignment of tenancy, nor he was a sub-tenant of the landlord. The learned single Judge, therefore, felt that a question of importance is involved, and hence, it should be decided by a Bench, and thus he referred the matter to a Bench. Thus the matter came before us.