The landlord's plea taken in the written statement can itself be made a ground for allowing relief to the plaintiff, subject to limitations. The onus is on the landlord to allege denial of title by the tenant, and the applicability of law in cases where parties are fully aware of the real issue in the proceedings.

The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the concurrent finding of fact rendered by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority that the petitioners herein as tenants have committed wilful default in making the payment of rent in respect of the respective premises. However, the other ground, under which the eviction was sought for by the landlord i.e. for demolition and reconstruction has been rejected by the Rent Controller. Since the relief of eviction has been granted on the ground of wilful default, the respondent landlord thought it fit not to agitate the matter before the appellate authority. However the aggrieved tenants carried the matter on appeal before the appellate authority only to have an order of seal of approval of the order of the Rent Controller. Incidentally, it has to be stated that the authorities below have taken note of the stand taken by the tenants in their counter denying title of the landlord and granted the relief of eviction on the ground of denial of title also. The said orders are now put in issue in the present revision petitions.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellate authority has come to the conclusion to grant the relief to the respondent on the ground of denial of title rather than to discuss the point in issue as to whether the petitioners have committed wilful default. He further contended that the appellate authority having given the finding that the denial of title is not bonafide and only a malafide without any further discussion as to the ground of wilful default i.e., whether the petitioner committed wilful default in making the payment of rent jumped to the conclusion that the tenants have committed wilful default.

3. He further contended that in the counter, the tenants have denied the title of the landlord. In such circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the landlord to have his original application amended by including the ground under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. For that purpose he very much relied on the decision in J.J.LAL PVT. LTD AND OTHERS VS. M.R.MURALI AND ANOTHER (2002 AIR SCW 794).

4. On the other hand, Mr. B.Ramamoorthi , learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that it is not as if the appellate authority has jumped to the conclusion without discussion. The appellate authority has confirmed the finding of the rent controller on the ground of wilful default after a detailed discussion. In addition to that, the ground under Section 10(2)(vii) i.e., denial of title of the respondent without any bona fide was also taken into consideration . He further contended that it is not as if the Euclid's theorem that as and when the title of the landlord has been denied in the counter, it is mandatory on the part of the landlord to amend the petition, when the parties to the proceedings are alive to the real issue in the proceedings and get along with the proceedings by adducing evidence on the ground of denial of title, it is not necessary to amend the pleadings. The very same decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in J.J.Lal's case (cited above) has been relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent to contend that even without a pleading, if materials are made available on the particular ground and on the basis of the same, if a decision has been taken , it cannot be complained of by the parties who are fully alive to the issue on the ground that the pleading has not been amended. He also contended that though elaborate argument was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as to the applicability of the decision in J.J.Lal's case, he has not made out any case , which warrants interference with the finding arrived at as to the wilful default as well as the denial of title of the respondent.

5. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side.

6. As submitted by the learned counsel for the r