Loon Chand Ranka vs N. Maina Devi

S. Manikumar, J.—The Revision Petition is directed against the Order and decretal Order, dated 21.1.2013, made in R.C.A No.278 of 2012 on the file of the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority), by confirming the Order and Decretal Order, dated 31.1.2012 made in R.C.O.P. No. 2418 of 2008, on the file of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai (Rent Controller).

Facts culled out from the proceedings before the Rent Control Authorities are as follows:

The averments in the RCOP are as follows:

The Respondents are the Tenants under the Petitioners in the Petition premises for non-residential purpose. The age of the building is more than 60 and the age of one portion is more than 80 years. The Petition building is a very old one and it is in a dilapidated condition and beyond repairs. The Petition property is situated in a junction of NSC Bose Road and Badriah Garden Street and it is an excellent commercial locality. The Petitioners are taking steps for getting the sanction for demolition and reconstruction. The Petitioners purchased the Petition premises only with an intention to demolish the existing structure and put up a new construction to augment income. The Petitioners undertake to commence the work of demolition within a period of one month from the date of getting vacant possession of the Petition premises and complete the same within thee months. The requirement of the Petitioners is bona fide. Hence, the Respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

The averments in the Counter filed by the 1st Respondent runs as follows:

The Respondent paid an advance amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the erstwhile Landlord. The Petition property especially Daga Mansion 1970 reconstructed and renovated added with appropriate supporting structures to undergo another period of 100 years. If the Petitioners were genuine would have not filed Petition for fixation of fair rent against this Respondent. The requirement of the Petitioners is not bona fide. Hence, this Petition is liable to be dismissed.

The averments in the Counter filed by the 3rd Respondent runs as follows:

The Respondent was inducted as a tenant with a built-up area of 1000 sq. ft. for residential purpose and 100 sq.ft. for non-residential purpose. The building is only 39 to 40 years old. The building is not in a dilapidated condition. The Petition premises is situated in a congested locality and it is very difficult to reach the Petition premises from all vantage points and all wastes have been dumped in the appurtenant area of the Petition premises thereby creating unhygienic condition and causing pollution. It is incorrect to say that the Petition premises is situated in an important location. Hence the claim of the Petitioners is not bona fide. Hence this Petition is liable to be dismissed.

The averments in the Counter filed by the 5th Respondent runs as follows:

The Respondent is in occupation of a portion of the first floor and second floor. It is incorrect that the Petition building is an old one and it is in a dilapidated condition. The Petitioners has not made any preparation for demolition and reconstruction. The Petitioners ought to have proved that they have sufficient means to demolish and reconstruction. In the absence of any proof of bona fide requirement of the Petition premises, the intention of the Petitioner is not genuine. The Petitioners filed this Petition with an intention to evict this Respondent and let out the premises for higher rent. Hence tins Petition is liable to be dismissed.

The averments in the Counter filed by the 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents runs as follows:

The Single Petition is not maintainable in respect of different portions in two different buildings having two separate door numbers. The erstwhile Landlord has filed RCOP and Appeal on the ground of demolition and reconstruction have been dismissed and hence, this Petition is barred by res judicata. The Petition premises is in good condition and it is not at all an old building. The entire Petition building is a multi-stored building and it is in a very strong and sound condition. The Petition building is located in a bad locality. The claim of the Petitioner is not bona fide. Hence, this Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6 The averments in the Counter filed by the 9th and 10th Respondents runs as follows:

The Petition building is only 38 years old. The Petition building is located in a highly congested area. The Petition building is in strong and sound condition and therefore, it does not require immediate demolition. Hence, this Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Before the learned Rent Controller, the 2nd Respondent examined himself as PW1 and one Azeez Mohideen, an Engineer, has been examined as PW2. On behalf of the Respondents/Landlords, 24 Documents have been marked as Exs. P1 to P24. Power Agent of the Revision Petitioner examined himself as RW1 and one Chellaiah Sarathy, an Engineer, has been examined as RW2. On behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, 52 documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B52.

Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, by Judgment and Decree, dated 31.1.2012, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of demolition and re-construction. Two months'' time has been granted for eviction. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner Tenant has preferred an Appeal in RCA No.278 of 2012.

The learned Rent Controller has framed the following points for consideration:

Whether the Petitioner (Landlord) is entitled for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction ?"

The main contention of the Tenant/Revision Petitioner is that the Petition premises has two different tax assessments by the Corporation of Chennai. The property has been purchased through two Sale Deeds Therefore, one Petition cannot be filed under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buddings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for demolition and reconstruction Whereas, the Respondents/Landlords have contended that the Petition property is located in a corner, at one side of NSC Bose Road and other side of Badriah Garden Street. According to the Respondents/Landlords, it is a single building and that therefore, the Rent Control proceedings is maintainable.

Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and also the photographs, Exs P4, P18, P27, P34, P42, P45, P46 and P49, the learned Rent Controller found that the building, situated at the corner of one side of NSC Bose Road and other side of Badriah Garden Street, is only a single building. While doing so, the learned Rent Controller has also taken note of the admission of RW1, in its cross-examination that it is a single building. The contents of Exs P2-Receipts from Corporation of Chennai, dated 29.6.2009 and Ex.P23-Sketch, have also been taken note of, by the learned Rent Controller, wherein, the Revision Petitioner/Tenant have admitted that there is no gap or space between the building. RW2, examined on behalf of the Tenant, has admitted in his cross-examination that the Petition property located at the corner of two streets, is only a Single building. Thus, on careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller has categorically found that Rent Control Original Petition instituted for demolition and re-construction, in respect of the Petition premises located at the corner of two streets, is only a single building and thus overruled the objections regarding maintainability.

On the aspect of the condition of the building, it is a case of the Landlords that the building was more than 80 years old and that it has been developed cracks. Whereas, it is the contention of the Revision Petitioner/Tenant that the building is in a sound condition. According to him, the age of the building was 40 years. Upon consideration of Ex B34, Photographs, the learned Rent Controller has observed that the building is in a dilapidated condition. The learned Rent Controller, upon analysis of the testimony of PW.2. Engineer, examined on behalf of the Respondents/Landlords and Ex P21, Report, has categorically held that the superstructure of the Petition building was unsound and it was structurally weak.

Further, on the aspect, as to whether, the Landlords have to necessarily prove that the condition of the building should be dangerous or not or fit for inhabitation and whether, it is suffice to prove bona fides, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, has relied on the following decisions of this Court,

(i) In Habibullah v. Mohamed Sultan, 2004 (2) CTC 270, this Court held as follows:

"Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 14(1)(b) - Demolition and Reconstruction - Mode of proof - Condition of the building - Building need not be old one or in a dangerous condition or in a dilapidated condition causing insecurity to occupants - Though Landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction for mere asking, labeling building as old one or not, in order to put up new construction to Suit convenient occupation and for better use in addition to have extra income, eviction may be ordered."

(ii) In Sridharan v. S. Natarajan, 2007 (3) CTC 45, this Court held as follows:

"in order to seek eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, is not necessary that the building should be in dangerous and dilapidated condition, requiring immediate demolition."

(iii) This Court in Sathish Kumar v. Selvadurai, 2010 (2) CTC 189, held that age and condition of the building are not sine qua non for getting relief under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

Thus, after taking note of the principles of law laid down by tins Court from the above reported Judgments and after careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller found that the requirement of the Landlords to demolish and reconstruct a structurally weak building, as justified. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, Exs.P4 and P5, wherein, the Respondents/Landlords have proved that they had a sum of Rs. 50 Lakhs as Bank account, and upon perusal of Exs. P6 to P12, Sale Deeds, that the Respondents/Landlords, owned other properties and taking note of the above said decisions, the learned Rent Controller has found that the Respondents/Landlords have established that they had sufficient source and moblised funds for demolition and reconstruction.

Though the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has submitted that no sanction plan for demolition and reconstruction of the building was produced before the learned Rent Controller and that therefore, the Petition lacks bona fide and on that score, the Landlords are not entitled to get any relief, upon perusal of Ex P1-Sanction Plan for demolition of the building and after considering the decision in Khyrunnissa and others v. Rose Nissa and others, 2005 (2) CTC 377, wherein, it has been held that, "licences granted by Municipal Authority is valid for only one year from the date on which it is granted, the Landlord sought for eviction in 1999 and Landlord agreed to take steps to obtain approval of plan by Municipal Authority - Even if Landlord had obtained approval in 1999 it would have expired and fresh approval had to be taken non-production of Approval Plan did not take away bona fide of Landlord seeking demolition and reconstruction", the learned Rent Controller has found that when the Respondents/Landlords haw given a statutory undertaking under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act to demolish the Petition premises within the statutory period and when the building is also in a bad condition, which required demolition, held that the requirement was bona fide and genuine and observing that the construction of a new building would augment better income, vide Judgment and Decree, dated 31.1.2012, allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and ordered eviction within two months.

Being aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner Tenant has filed an Appeal in RCA No 278 of 2012 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, has framed the following question, for consideration:

"Whether the order of the learned Rent Controller in allowing the R.C.O.P., filed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is correct or not ?

Upon perusal of the materials on record, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has found that though the Petition premises is located in two different streets, the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has candidly admitted that the portion occupied by him, is covered by a single tenancy, which is for both residential and non-residential. Out of 1,100 sq.ft., 1,000 sq.ft. has been used for residential purpose and 100 sq.ft. has been used for non-residential purpose. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has also taken note of the fact that the power agent of the Revision Petitioner Tenant has admitted that there is no gap between the two buildings. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, while considering the testimony, RW1, dated 7.6.2011, has found that the Revision Petitioner Tenant has categorically admitted that the tenancy, in respect of the Petition premise, both residential and non-residential, is covered by a single tenancy and that he has extracted the portion of RW1, as follows:

VERNACULAR MATTER

Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, has rightly concurred with the decision of the Rent Controller that the Petition filed under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is maintainable. As per Section 14(i)(b) of the Act, the Landlord should satisfy three conditions, as follows:

"(i) bona fide intention, far from sole object to get rid of Tenants;

(ii) The age and condition of the building; and

(iii) The financial position to demolish and reconstruction."

On the aspect of bona fide, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, upon consideration of the materials on record, has found that the Respondents/Landlords have taken all possible efforts and vacated all the Tenants, except the Revision Petitioner/Tenant. The said fact has also been admitted by the Revision Petitioner/Tenant. Therefore, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, by observing that if the intention of the Respondent Landlord was to get rid off the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, the Landlord need not have to kept the premises vacant for years together, without renting it and so saying, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the intention of the Landlord/Respondent, was bona fide, to demolish and reconstruct the dilapidated building. The fact of keeping other portions vacant, till the Revision Petitioner/Tenant vacated the premises, so as to enable the Landlord to demolish and reconstruct was also fortified by his own version, wherein, he has deposed that all the Tenants, except the Revision Petitioner had vacated and the portion occupied by the others, was under lock and key. The relevant portion of the admission of RW1 is reproduced hereunder:

VERNACULAR MATTER

Admittedly, the Petition premises is located in a busy commercial area. The building is also old. Demolition and reconstruction would certainly fetch more revenue. As rightly observed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority that if the intention of the Landlord Respondent is to earn more money, by evicting the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, he would not have kept the other portions vacant.

Upon perusal of Ex.P13-Photographs, even the learned Rent Controller has noticed that the Petition premise was structurally week and needs demolition and reconstruction Though the age and condition of the building is not the only requirement for demolition and reconstruction, yet on the facts and circumstances of the case, sufficient materials have been produced before the authorities under the Rent Control Act, to prove that the building is old and required demolition. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has held that the age and condition of the building is not a sine-quo-non in deciding the Petition filed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction Some of the decisions relied on by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are extracted hereunder:

(i) In Mahboob Badsha v. Manga Devi, 1965 (2) MLJ 209 at 213, the court held as follows:

"It is not necessary that the building should be very old and decrepit to enable the Landlord to claim that the immediate purpose was for demolition of the building. Section 14(1)(b) is not rendered inapplicable merely because the building is not old or dilapidated but is m a good condition."

(ii) In S. Saraswathiammal and others v. R.S. Mallikarjun Raja and others, 1997 (2) MLJ 474, it is held as follows:

"It is well settled that the building need not be in a dilapidated condition or in a dangerous state of affairs for ordering eviction."

(iii) In Jaypee Electronics (P) Ltd., Chennai v. A.V. Appasamy, 2000 (2) MLJ 551, it is held as follows:

"The building need not be in a dangerous condition and unfit for habitation for an eviction order to be passed under the ground of demolition and reconstruction. No Court can fix any limit in respect of age and condition of the building, it is only a factor which has to be taken into consideration along with other factors in testing the bona fides of the Landlord."

As regards means, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Though the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant contended that the Court below has failed to consider that there are two separate buildings with two door numbers, perusal of the material on record and the well considered orders of the Rent Control Authorities make it abundantly clear that though the building is a corner property with two different Door Numbers, on one side of NSC Bose Road and other side of Badriah Garden Street and that it is a single building. Just because, two Door Numbers have been given by the Municipal Authorities, for the location of a property, used for residential and non-residential purpose, it would not lie a reason to conclude that the building is separate, nor it would wipe out the candid admission made by the Revision Petitioner/Tenant that there was only a single tenancy. The oral testimony of RW1, Revision Petitioner/Tenant does not support the pleadings. The building requires demolition and reconstruction. The decisions quoted above squarely applies to this case. No perversity would be found in the impugned concurrent Orders.

In Sri Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy, 1980 (4) SCC 259, the Supreme Court has observed that-

"despite wide language employed in the section, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with the findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the Subordinate Authority."

In Sherwood Educational Society v. Abid Namazie, 1997 (1) LW 323, this Court has held as follows:

"13. Sitting in Revision, this Court can exercise its powers under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act only if it is shown that the judgement by the Appellate Authority is in any way illegal, irregular or improper. It cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a Court of Appeal. If the decision is based on materials and that reason could be arrived on those materials, for the purpose of arriving at a different conclusion, the evidence cannot be re-read or re-appreciated. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner was well aware of the jurisdiction of this Court and that is why he wanted this Court to take into consideration certain additional facts. He, therefore, filed CMP No. 16992 of 1994, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence in the C.R.P."

Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act says:

"14(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a Landlord, the Controller shall, if he is satisfied,-

(a) (Omitted)

(b) that the building is bona fide required by the Landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an Order directing the Tenant to deliver possession of the building to the Landlord before a specified date."

In this connection, the corresponding provision of the Kerala Rent Control Act is also relevant for consideration. It may also be noted that under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the Landlord is entitled to get eviction "If a building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the Landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the Court that he has the plan and licence, if required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction".

Interpreting this Section, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., as he then was, has taken Kalyani v. Madhavi, 1970 KLT 257, the following view:

"Counsel, however, argues and rightly, that the building must he in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and this ingredient has to be made out apart from the Landlord''s bona fide intention to reconstruct. Here, it is argued that the stress is upon the physical condition of the building. I do not agree. If eviction can be had only on the Court being satisfied that the physical condition of the building is on the verge of collapse, there is no doubt that few buildings could be evicted before they have actually collapsed. Knowing the length of tune taken in rent control litigation in Kerala, not unusual to find the period between the institution of an Application and its ultimate disposal in the Revisional Court, lengthening into several years if a building perilously close to sinking alone can justify a Petition under Section 11(4)(iv) in a State with heavy monsoons, I do not know what purpose would be served by such a course except to endanger the lives of Tenants. It is obvious, therefore, that a wider and more realistic meaning must be given to the expression condition of the building. The social purpose of this provision is to remove the road blocks in the way of progress in building programmes Old structures in newly developing areas may be like pimples on tail faces Replacement and renewal of obsolescent and unsightly buildings to make room for larger, modem constructions is a social necessity, provided existing tenants are not thrown into the streets. The condition of the building is a larger concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and allied factors. Where the building is very old and incongruous with the social setting and the surroundings of the place, the Court has got to take a more liberal view in applying the provisions of law..."

(Emphasis supplied)

In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998 (3) CTC 679, the Supreme Court explained the power of the revision under Section of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, at Paragraphs 5 to 10, held as follows:

"5. Section 25-B of the Act lays down "special procedure for the disposal of Application for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement." Sub-section (1) says that every Application for recovery of possession on the ground specified in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 25-B Sub-section (8) says that no Appeal or Second Appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Rent Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. The Proviso that sub-section reads thus:

"Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit."

The above Proviso indicates that power of the High Court is supervisory in nature and it is intended to ensure that the Rent Controller conforms to law when he passes the order. The satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the records of the case must be confined to the limited sphere that the Order of the Rent Controller is "according to the law." In other works, the High Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain whether any illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in passing the order under Section 25-B. It is not permissible for the High Court in that exercise to come to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached such a finding 011 the materials available.

Although, the work "Revision" is not employed in the Proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Act it is evident from the language used therein that the power conferred is Revisional power. In legal parlance distinction between Appellate and Revisional jurisdiction is well understood. Ordinarily, Appellate jurisdiction is wide enough to afford a re-hearing of the whole case for enabling the Appellate forum to arrive at fresh conclusions untrammeled by the conclusions reached in the order challenged before it Of course, the statute which provides Appeal provision can circumscribe or limit the width of such Appellate powers. Revisional power on the contrary, is ordinarily a power of supervision keeping subordinate Tribunals within the bounds of law Expansion or constriction of such Revisional power would depend upon how the statute has couched such power therein. In some legislations Revisional jurisdiction is meant for satisfying itself as to the regularity, legality or propriety of proceedings or decisions of the Subordinate Court. In Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, 1980 (4) SCC 259, this Court considered the scope of the words ("the High Court may call for and examine the records to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, illegality or propriety of any decision or order...") by which power of Revision has been conferred by a particular statute Dealing with the contention that the above words indicated conferment of a very wide power on the Revisional Authority, this Court has observed thus in the said decision:

"The dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation of the words to satisfy ''itself under the Section appeals to be that the power conferred on the High Court under the Section is essentially a power of superintendence. Therefore, despite the wide language employed in the Section the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the Subordinate Authority."

Dealing with Section 32, Delhi and Ajmer Rent (Control) Act, 1952, which is almost identically worded as in the Proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Act a Three-Judge Bench of this Court has stated thus in Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, 1962 Suppl (1) SCR 933:

"The Section is, thus, framed to confer larger powers than the power to correct error of jurisdiction to which Section 115 is limited. But it must not be overlooked that the Section - in spite of its apparent width of language where it confers a power on the High Court to pass such Order as the High Court might think fit - is controlled by the opening words, where it says that the High Court may send for the record of the case to satisfy itself that the decision is according to law." It stands to reason that if it was considered necessary that there should be a rehearing a right of Appeal would be a more appropriate remedy, but the Act says that there is to be no further Appeal."

In Malini Ayyappa Naicker v. Seth Menghraj Udhavadas, 1969 (1) SCC 688, another Thee-Judge Bench of this Court was considering a similarly worded Proviso in Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 Though, learned Judges did not give an exhaustive definition of the expression "according to law", a catalogue of instance in which the High Court may interfere under the said Proviso was given in the decision as the following:

"They are cases in which the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction or in which the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere."

The bench has, however, cautioned that the High Court should not interfere merely because it considered that "possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at."

In Rafat Ali v. Sugni Bai, 1999 (1) SCC 133, the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Revisional jurisdiction, held as follows:

"The Application given to the section makes it unmistakably clear that the power conferred thereunder is revisional which means, it is a power of supervision. It is well neigh settled that a Revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with Appeal powers in all its parameters. The power to call for and examine the records is for the purpose of the High Court to satisfy itself as to the "legality, regularity or propriety" of the Order of the Lower Authority. Even such a widely worded frame of the Section may at best indicate that the Revisional powers are not so restricted as in the enactments wherein the words are not so widely framed Nonetheless, they remain in the realm of supervisory jurisdiction."

In Soundarajan @ Sampath v. Venkataraman, 2001 (3) CTC 237, this Court, at paragraph 9, held as follows:

"Of course this Court sitting in supervisory jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, cannot interfere in concurrent findings of the Courts below unless there is illegality, impropriety (sic) or irregularity in arriving at such conclusion."

In M. Gangabai Ammal v. M. Saraswathamma, 2006 (2) MLJ 711; and J.V. Bhoopalan v. Rajamanickammal and others, 2007 (2) CTC 472, it is held that this Court under Section 25 of the above said Act, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion.

In view of the above decisions and discussion, there is no manifest illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and that the same are confirmed. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed Four month''s time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, is granted for eviction. The Revision Petitioner Tenant shall file an Affidavit of undertaking to that effect. No costs Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.