For getting benefit of protection landlord and tenant relationship is a must.

There were three Rent Control Petitions being R.C.O.P.No.48 of 1988, R.C.O.P.No.49 of 1988 and R.C.O.P.No.51 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Tirupattur. The petitioner in each of these three cases is the same landlord. The respondent in each of these three cases are three separate tenants respectively. In all these three cases, eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and for owner’s occupation of a non-residential building from each of the tenant. The Rent Controller agreed with the landlord in all the three cases on both the grounds and ordered eviction. Each of the tenant filed three independent appeals and that were taken on file as R.C.A.No.4 of 1992, R.C.A.No.5 of 1992 and R.C.A.No.3 of 1992. All the three appeals were allowed on merits and therefore these revisions be fore this Court namely, C.R.P.No.3137 of 1993, C.R.P.No.3145 of 1993 andC.R.P.No.3577of 1993.

.2. I heard Mr.R.M.Krishna Raja, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in each of these three revisions and Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in each of these three revisions. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Appellate Authority had completely erred in law and on facts in reversing the order of the Rent Controller, when the landlord had made out the case the grounds of eviction in each of these three cases. According to him, it is established that the landlord is the owner of the property being the subject matter of tenancy in favour of each of the tenant; each of the tenant have committed wilful default in the payment of rent and the requirement for owner’s occupation of the premises for non-residential purposes. In addition to this, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that each of the tenant is guilty of denying the title of the landlord; it is not bona fide and if it is found established, then there would be no impediment for this Court to order eviction on that ground as well, though the rent control petition is not amended including that cause of action. As against these submissions, Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned counsel for the respondent in each of these three cases submitted that it is true that the tenants have not paid the rent to the landlord. However from the mere nonpayment of the rent itself, it cannot be said that it is a wilful default. The learned counsel would add that the circumstances and materials available in this case would not lead to the conclusion that the tenants are guilty of committing wilful default. On the other hand, the learned counsel submitted that each of the tenant was justified in their conduct. As far as the requirement of owner’s occupation is concerned, the submission of the learned counsel is that on the facts pleaded and the evidence let in by the landlord, it cannot be said that the requirement has been made out. As far as the last issue is concerned about the denial of the title not being bona fide, the learned counsel would state that the stand taken by each of the tenant in their respective counter statement would not amount to denying the title. Even assuming it amounts to, yet it has to be held that it is only bona fide. In any event, the learned counsel for the respondent in each of these three revisions submitted that unless the rent control petition is amended including that ground also as a cause of action in the present case, no relief could be granted on that.

.3. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I perused the pleadings, the records as well as the order under challenge. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, it is better I extract the bare minimum pleadings. The pleadings in all the three cases (both the petition and the counter) are more or less on the same terms. The rent per month is Rs.250 in the first case, Rs.300 in the second case and Rs.250 in t