Maintainability of the eviction petition filed by only one heir of deceased landlord.

Somasundaram, J.

1. The 2nd respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1-981 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthamapalayam, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioners 1 and 2 in the said R.C.O.P. are the respondents 1 and 2 in the civil revision petition. The first respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1981 is the third respondent herein. The third respondent in the R.C.O.P. is the fourth respondent herein. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the Rent Control Original petition.

2. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1981 under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(vii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioners is as follows: The petition mentioned property belongs to the petitioners by inheritance. It was leased out by the father of the petitioners to one Serma Sami on a monthly rent of Rs. 23 even before 1972. The said Serma Sami was paying rent and obtaining printed receipts and the last receipt was issued on 12.11.1973. On the death of Serma Sami his brother, the second respondent, let out by the petition property to the first respondent and he was collecting rent. The second respondent did not pay any rent to the petitioners from 1.10.1973 though he would set up a case of joint family between himself and his brother, Serma Sami. As the respondents have not paid the rent for a period of six years, the petitioners issued a notice to the first respondent on 18.8.1980. The second respondent sent a reply denying the title of the petitioners. The petition mentioned building is required for demolition and reconstruction.

3. The second respondent resisted the petition for eviction contending as follows: The petitioners are not the owners of the petition mentioned property. The ground floor of the petition mentioned building is in the Highways Road, Poramboke and it belongs to the Government. The second respondent and his brother, Serma Sami were running a shop for eight years and subsequently the second respondent alone is now running the shop for the past 22years. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the second respondent and therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

4. On a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Rent Controller found that there is a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the second respondent; that the second respondent has denied the title of the petitioners; that he has committed wilful default in the payment of rent to the petitioners and that the petitioners bona fide required the building in question for demolition and reconstruction. Consequently the Rent Controller allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and passed an order of eviction against the second respondent.

5. As against the order of the Rent Controller the second respondent filed an appeal R.C.A. No. 1 of 1986 before the Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Periyakulam). By confirming the findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority the second respondent had filed the present civil revision petition. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Counsel for the second respondent raised two contentions in this civil revision petition. Firstly the learned Counsel would contend that the petitioners have not established their title to the petition mentioned property by proving that their father was entitled to the petition mentioned property and after his death, the petitioners are the only heirs of their father. In other words, learned Counsel contended that the petitioners are, not landlords within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act and, therefore, they cannot maintain the petition for eviction. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that the second respondent