High Court is bound to interfere in revision in a given case.

Landlords in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 1988 on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Srivlliputhur, are the revision petitioners.

2. Eviction petition was filed by petitioners on the ground that the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent from Karthigai 1979 and also on the ground that the tenant has denied the title of the landlords without any bona fide.

3. Thematerial averments in the eviction petition could be summarised thus:

The petitioners claimed that they are joint owners of petition scheduled property bearing door No.315, with building and shed with adjacent open space in Tenkasi Road, Rajapalayam Town. It is their case that the respondent took schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.125 from 3. 1970 and later at the rate of Rs.300 per month from 13. 1980. The tenancy is oral and according to the Tamil calendar month. The respondent is carrying on Leco coal business in the schedule property. The 3rd petitioner was receiving the rent on behalf of petitioners and he has paid rent till Karthigai 1979 and thereafter he has paid no rent. On 21. 1984, a registered notice was issued asking the tenant to vacate the premises in view of default in paying rent. A reply notice was sent on 21. 1984 whereby he denied the right of the petitioner over the building. The petitioners filed O.S.No.505 of 1984 for recovery of arrears filed O.S.No.505 of 1984 for recovery of arrears of rent. In that suit, the respondent admitted the tenancy in respect of site and contended that the monthly rent is only Rs.125 and not Rs.300. Under these circumstances, the petitioners were compelled to file the eviction petition under Rent Control Act.

4. Inthe counter statement filed by the respondent he admitted that the petitioner are the owners of the site, but not of building, According to him he has put up the construction and the monthly rent is Rs.125 for the site. He also claimed that he is entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. According to him, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the application since there is no tenancy arrangement in respect of building. The claim of the landlords that the building required demolition and reconstruction was also denied.

5. TheRent Controller as per order dated 3. 1994, allowed the application. It held that the rental arrangement was in respect of building and denial of title is not bona fide.

6. Aggrieved by the order, respondent herein filed R.C.A.No.15 of 1994 on the file of the Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur. Appellate Authority re-considered the entire evidence and held that the denial of title is bona fide and eviction petition was dismissed.

7. It is against the said order, landlords are preferred this revision.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The only question that requires consideration is, whether there was a rental arrangement in respect of the building as contended by the landlords or whether there is denial of title over the superstructure raised by the tenant in bona fide. If it is found that there is rental arrangement in respect of the building, then it has to be held that the tenant is liable to be evicted both on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground that the denial of title is not bona fide and consequently, he is liable to be evicted, If it is found that the denial of title is bona fide. the remedy of the landlords is only to move a civil court for appropriate relief.

10. So, the main question to be considered in this revision is, whether the denial of title of the landlord is bona fide or not.

11. P.W.1 is the 3rd petitioner, He speaks in terms of the eviction petition. Learned counsel for the landlords relied on Exs.A-3 and A-4 to contend that the building belongs to them and the local authority were also assessed the building situated in the property in their names. As against the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during the very same p