Objections raised by tenant cannot be allowed.

The above revision petition is filed by the tenant who failed before both the authorities below.

.2. The respondent/ landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. He requires the building for his own occupation to start his commission business. It is the case of the respondent that he is the owner of the premises in question and the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent occupying the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.200 per month. In R.C.O.P. No.l16 of 1984 filed by the petitioner herein before the Rent Controller, Tuticorin, the Rent Controller has order the petitioner herein to deposit the rent into court continuously without fail. It is the further case of the respondent herein that in spite of the court orders, the tenant has not deposited the rent into court from July, 1987 onwards till date of the petition, namely, November, 1987. It is his further case that the landlord requires the premises to do his business as partner with his son Adhimuthu. On the basis of these averments, the landlord filed the petition to vacate the tenant from the premises bearing Door No.17, Meenakshipuram, Ward No.18, Tuticorin.

.3. The petitioner- tenant contested the petition by filing a counter stating that as there was dispute regarding the ownership, a petition in R.C.O.P. No.l16 of 1984 was filed to deposit the rent and the same was allowed and the tenant had been regularly depositing the rent into court and the landlord has also drawn the same. There was a delay in getting challan and so the tenant had deposited the rent at a time in a lump sum. The rent from July, 1987 has been regularly deposited. It is the case of the tenant that the requirement of the premises for the landlord’s own use and occupation is not correct.

.The landlord examined himself as P.W.I and one Anthonysami as P.W.2. The tenant examined one Sundararajan as his witness as R.W.I. The landlord and tenant marked documents in support of their respective contentions. The Rent Controller after discussing the oral and documentary evidence and appreciating the arguments of the respective counsel, found, on the basis of Ex.A-2 that the petitioner before him is the owner of the property, that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the building for the occupation of the landlord is a bona fide one. In the basis of these findings, the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant from the promises in question but granted three months time to hand over possession. The petitioner/ tenant filed an appeal in R.CA.No.14 of 1990. The learned appellate authority confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against these orders, the petitioner/ tenant has filed the above revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that there was a dispute regarding the ownership of the property, a petition in R.C.O.P. No.116 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tuticorin, and, on that basis, the learned counsel submitted that the petition is not maintainable at the instance of the respondent, in the absence of any consent from the other persons who are also claiming right in the property, or impleading them as respondent in the petition. In support of her submission, she relied on Ex.A-1 to contend that the Rent Controller would not have allowed the petition under Sec.9 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, unless there is a dispute regarding the title. To sustain her argument, she relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SK. Sattar SK. Mohd. v. Gundappa Amabadas, (1996)6 S.C.C. 373. Regarding the ground under Sec.10(2)(i) of Act, the submission of the learned counsel is that the tenant has deposited the entire amount, and P.W.2 himself has admitted such deposit and that the