Arrear rent paid in court after filing of eviction petition.

The tenant, who suffered an eviction order before the courts below, is the revision petitioner.

2. The respondents herein as petitioners, claiming as the landlords, under a Will said to have been executed by one Pushpa Ammal, in respect of the petition mentioned property, have filed a petition for eviction of the revision petitioner, on the ground that he had committed willful default, in payment of rent from January 1993.

3. The revision petitioner, as respondent in R.C.O.P. opposed the application, questioning the genuineness of the Will, as well as denying the status of the landlords, disputing their title to the property. It is the further case of the tenant that the property originally belonged to a trust, under whom he took the property for lease and was paying the rent regularly. In this view, the tenant contended that the respondents herein are not entitled to file a petition for eviction, thereby prayed for the dismissal.

4. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, after considering the rival claims of the parties, had come to the conclusion, that the respondents herein are the landlords and the revision petitioner is the tenant of the premises, upholding the Will relied on by the landlords. Both the courts below, have concurrently held that the tenant/revision petitioner had committed default, which amounts to willful default, and on that ground, ordered the eviction of the revision petitioner, thereby giving cause of action, for the revision petitioner, to come to this Court, challenging the orders of the courts below.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Prakash and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. T. Viswanatha Rao.

6. The point for determination is: whether the respondents herein are the landlords of the petitioner and whether the non payment of rent by the revision petitioner to the respondents, amounts to willful default.

7. The revision petitioner is in occupation of the schedule mentioned property, as tenant, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.215/-. It seems, he has not paid the rent from January 1993, despite a notice which had emanated from the respondents. The respondents herein have approached the Rent Controller for eviction of this revision petitioner labeling him, that he is the tenant under them, but failed and defaulted to pay the monthly rent from January 1993 and on this ground, he is liable to be evicted from the premises.

8. The tenant/revision petitioner opposed the application on various grounds, disputing the status of the landlords. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner, as seen from the counter, that the schedule mentioned property originally belonged to Pushpa Ammal and she had created a trust under a Trust Deed dated 10.3.65 appointing one Gopal Chetty, Dasaratha Chetty and Avva Jayarama Chetty, as the Trustees and after the lifetime of the said Pushpa Ammal, the Trustees were collecting the rents from him and as such, the petitioners have no locus standi, to collect the rent or to file a petition for eviction. In view of the specific defence taken by the revision petitioner, it is incumbent upon the landlords to prove that the revision petitioner is the tenant, under them under the agreement or by his conduct, such as paying the rent regularly to them, recognising as landlords. If the respondents failed to prove that they are the landlords, and the tenant had recognized them as landlords, as rightly contended on behalf of the revision petitioner, the order passed by the Rent Controller is liable to be set aside.

9. Both the courts below, in my considered opinion, have failed to consider the important points in this case, but unnecessarily dealt with the Will, though it is relevant to some extent, to decide the title of the landlords. Even in the absence of establishing title, if it is proved by the collection of rent, the respondents herein come within the meaning of landlords, the petition also could be maintained.

10