The burden of proof in establishing tenancy rights and the wider revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Rent Control Act.

Sivakumar, the landlord filed a petition for eviction on the grounds of wilful default, sub-letting and owner's occupation. The Rent Controller allowed the petition on the grounds of wilful default and owner's occupation. Aggrieved by the same, one of the sub-lessees filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the eviction. The Appellate Authority concluded that sub-lease was not proved and the appellant also has not proved that he is a tenant and therefore, dismissed the eviction petition by allowing the appeal holding that the appellant being in possession of the petition premises can be construed to be a trespasser and as such, the landlord can seek the remedy for recovery of possession through separate proceedings. Challenging the same, the landlord has filed this civil revision petition.

2. The case of the petitioner/landlord is this:

"The petition premises was purchased by one N.Muthusamy Gounder on 29.12.1972. Sivakumar, the present petitioner is the grandson of the said Mutusamy Gounder. The said premises was leased out to K.S.Kolandasamy Gounder on 29.12.1972 itself to run a jewellery shop on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. From that date onwards, Kolandasamy Gounder was in possession of the building as a tenant. The landlord Muthusamy Gounder died in November 1982 leaving a Will bequeathing the petition premises and other properties to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner became the landlord. In November 1982, the tenant Kolandasamy Gounder also died. After his death, his wife Thangammal, the first respondent as a legal representative has to pay the rent to the petitioner, but she did not pay the rent from November 1982 and sub-leased the building to Subramanian and Nagarajan, the respondents 2 and 3 without permission of the landlord. On 28.11.1983, the petitioner/landlord sent notice to respondents 1 to 3 demanding the delivery of possession of the petition premises terminating the tenancy by 31.12.1983 on the ground that the rent from November 1982 has not been paid. The respondents sent a reply disputing the tenancy of K.S.Kolandasamy Gounder and stating that V.P.Muthusamy, father of respondents 2 and 3 is the tenant of the premises under his grandfather and alleging that the said V.P.Muthusamy paid the rent till the end of October 1982 to the petitioner's father. V.P.Muthusamy also sent another notice on 14.11.1983 to the petitioner claiming tenancy right and offering to pay the rent from November 1983 and sent money order of Rs.200/-. The same was refused to be received. Then, V.P.Muthusamy filed a separate petition in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 1984 seeking permission for depositing the rent claiming the tenancy right in the petition premises. Thus, the first respondent not only sub-let the premises to the respondents 2 to 4, but also colluded with the other respondents in setting up tenancy falsely in favour of Muthusamy, the fourth respondent apprehending eviction. Hence, the petition for eviction on the ground that the first respondent failed to pay rent from November 1982, despite notice, and sub-let to the respondents 2 and 3 without permission and for requirement of own use.

3. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the said V.P.Muthusamy was ordered to be impleaded as fourth respondent. Since fourth respondent also is a sub-tenant of the first respondent, all the four are liable to be evicted from the premises.

4. The case put forward by the respondents 1 to 3 is as follows:

"The first respondent's husband never took the shop No.9 and executed a rent agreement on 29.12.1972 in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner. The fourth respondent V.P.Mutusamy alone is the tenant. He filed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 1984 for depositing the rent. V.P.Muthusamy had been doing the business in the petition premises on the basis of oral lease agreement with Muthusamy Gounder, the grandfather of the petitioner. The respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of V.P.Muthusamy, the fourth respondent. Since the respondent