.1. The above revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17. 1998 made in RCA. No. 337 of 1991 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes Court) Madras, setting aside the order of the eviction dated 12. 1990 made in RCOP. No. 1727 of 1988 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (XI Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras.

.2. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows:

.The landlords were the revision petitioners who filed the above RCOP. No. 1727 of 1988, seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant, under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground of wilful default for non-payment of rent for the period from January 1987 to March 1988, at the rate of Rs. 3, 000 per month.

3. According to the revision petitioners, the petition premises namely door No. 224, Indira Nagar, 4th Avenue, Madras-20 originally let out to the respondent-tenant, by one T.J.M. Wilson, father of the revision petitioners, for a monthly rent of Rs. 3, 000 for nonresidential purpose, namely to run a clinic. T.J.M. Wilson, father of the revision petitioners died on 12. 1986. After his death, the revision petitioners have become entitled to receive the rent along with their mother Smt. Indira Wilson. Smt. Indira Wilson died on 112. 1987 and thereafter, the revision petitioners are alone entitled to receive the rent. The revision petitioners stated that their father himself initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent herein and after the death of their father, they filed an application to bring them as legal representative of their father, deceased T.J.M. Wilson.

.4. The revision petitioners further stated that the respondent neglected to pay the rent from January, 1987 inspite of repeated oral requests. Therefore, they gave a lawyers notice dated 23. 1988, which is marked as exhibit P1, to which the respondent sent reply notice dated 14. 1988, which is marked as exhibit P2. The lawyers notice dated 23. 1988 was given on behalf of Pradeep Wilson, first petitioner in RCOP, Pramod Wilson, second petitioner in RCOP and Srikanth Wilson, fifth Petitioner in RCOP whereas Praveen Wilson and Rathnakant Wilson, namely third and fourth petitioners in RCOP respectively, were represented by their power agent, Pramod Wilson, second petitioner in RCOP. Therefore, the notice dated 23. 1988 was given on behalf of all the sons of the deceased T.J.M. Wilson.

5. In the said notice dated 23. 1988, the petitioners in RCOP claimed that on the death of their parents, they became the landlords of the said property and as such the respondent was liable to pay the rent to the petitioners in RCOP.

6. In the reply notice dated 14. 1988, the respondent had stated the he was regular in paying the rent till the death of T.J.M. Wilson and they could not pay the rent thereafter as no one came forward with any claim for the rent for more than a year. It is further stated that he did not know whether the deceased Wilson left any Will or settlement in favour of the petitioners. It is also contended that there was no cordial relationship between the deceased T.J.M. Wilson and his wife and other relations and therefore, the respondent apprehended that there might be other claimants also. The respondent-tenant justified non-payment of rent stating that there was no mention in the lawyers notice dated 23. 1988 whether there was any daughter or any other heirs.

7. In view of the stand taken by the respondent, the petitioners in RCOP, filed the above RCOP seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act on the ground of wilful default in paying the rent, as referred to above.

.8. The above eviction proceedings was objected by the respondent stating that the deceased T.J.M. Wilson was living alone in the neighbouring house at No.225, 4th Avenue, Indira Nagar, Madras 600 020; the deceased T.J.M. Wil