Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with.

The above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16. 1996 made in R.C.A.No.76 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, thereby confirming the order dated 10. 1991 made in R.C.O.P.No. 189 of 1987 by the Rent Controller and XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.

2. The petition filed before the Rent Controller is one made under Sec.10(2)(i) and (v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) thereby alleging that the respondent is a tenant under the first petitioner, viz., Mariammal to whom the property belongs and the rent being collected by the second of them, who is also made a party therein, of a room for residential purpose located at 24, Elaya Mudali Street, Madras-21, on a monthly rent of Rs.40 payable on the first of every succeeding English calendar month.

3. The other contentions of the petitioners before the Rent Controller are that the respondent having paid the rent for the months of March, 1986 and May, 1986, failed and neglected to pay for the subsequent months from April to November, 1986, thus for a total period of 8 months accumulating to Rs.440 and inspite of repeated demands including the notice dated 210. 1986, which was acknowledged, but without any reply or response, rendered himself liable to be evicted for wilful default in payment of rent.

4. The further contentions of the petitioners/ landlords are that whenever the rents were demanded, he created scene and caused troubles not only to the petitioners, but also to the co-tenants, thus causing nuisance to the intolerable extent especially after the receipt of the notice issued by them and hence, at this score also, the respondent became liable to be evicted.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent/tenant, it would be urged that it is the first petitioners husband Thangaiya Nadar with whom this respondents father-in-law entered into an agreement of becoming the tenant, thus occupying the vacant site belonging to a Trust and it was his father-in-law who constructed the superstructure along with Thangaiya Nadar and started occupying the premises and effecting the payment of rents to the Trust. After him, it is this respondent, who is in possession of the premises for the last ten years stepping into the shoes of his father-in-law. Hence, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent under the Act.

6. It would further be contended by the respondent that the petitioners were never in the habit of issuing receipt for the amounts paid and there is no arrears of land rent at all. The land rent is only Rs.5 per month and not Rs.40 as falsely alleged in the petition. Hence, no landlord-tenant relationship exists between the first petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, no default much less any wilful default would be attributed to the respondent; that the second petitioner is in no where connected with the premises and he is a third party. He has no locus standi to be a party to the petition much less joining hands with the first petitioner.

7. Ultimately, the respondent/tenant would also allege that this court in the above facts and circumstances brought forth, has no jurisdiction to try the above petition, since there is no landlord-tenant relationship ever existed in between the first petitioner and the respondent. With these averments, the respondent would pray for dismissing the petition with costs.

8. The Rent Controller, during enquiry, would frame three issues for determination, viz.,

(i) whether the petition is maintainable. (ii) whether the respondent committed wilful default in the payment of rents; and (iii) whether the respondent had caused nuisance to the petitioners and would also conduct the enquiry with due opportunity for parties to be heard when the second petitioner, besides examining himself as the sole witness on his side as RW.1, would