The denial of the present landlord's title by the tenant was not bonafide, and the landlord need not approach the civil court for possession of the property.

These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 18. 1998 and 10. 2001 made in R.C.A.Nos.12/97 and 10/99, on the file of the Appellate Authority, (Principal Sub-Judge) Mayiladuthurai confirming the orders dated 4. 97 and 8. 99 made in RCOP Nos.10/96 and 32/97 on the file of the rent controller (Principal District Munsif) Mayiladuthurai, respectively.

2. As the parties are one and the same and the property involved in all the revision petitions is the very same property, a common order is being passed to dispose of both the revision petitions.

3. The brief facts are as under:

These revision petitions are filed by the tenant. RCOP No.10/1999 was filed by the respondent herein, hereinafter called the landlord, against the revision petitioner, hereinafter called the tenant, for eviction on the ground of willful default and owners occupation. The case of the landlord in RCOP No.10/1999 is that he purchased the petition property on 23. 1996 from one T.R.Anthonysamy represented by his Power of Attorney. The tenant was already there in the property even before his purchase and therefore he became his tenant after purchase. As he did not pay the rent from 23. 1996 to 25. 96, the tenant committed willful default in the payment of rent. The landlord further stated in his petition that he purchased the property from the erstwhile owner for the specific purpose of his own occupation and he did not have any other residential property other than the petition property.

4. The tenant resisted the RCOP by contending that he was not aware of the purchase of the property by the landlord on 23. 1996. He further pleaded that he became a tenant of the property under his possession through one Paul Iruthayaraj, the brother of the owner of Anthonysamy and he has been in occupation of the property since 1982 by paying a monthly sum of Rs.125/-. Therefore the tenant denied that the landlord is competent to evict him as he has never been a tenant under the landlord. The rent controller after going through the evidence found that the landlord is competent to file the eviction petition and the landlord has become the owner by virtue of his purchasing the property from the said Anthonysamy. Insofar as the willful default aspect is concerned, the rent controller found that the default was not willful. As regards the question of owners occupation is concerned, even though the rent controller found that the landlord proved his bonafide in requiring the petition property, the rent controller dismissed the RCOP on this ground also as eviction petition was filed within 3 months from the date of purchase of the property.

5. Even though the RCOP was dismissed on technical ground, that is, filing the RCOP for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for owners occupation within 3 months from the date of purchase, the tenant was aggrieved by the findings of the rent controller that the landlord is competent to file an eviction petition on the basis of the sale deed dated 23. 1996 and that the landlord bonafidely required the property for his own occupation. Therefore he filed RCA No.12/1997 against those findings alone and the rent control appellate authority after re-evaluating the evidence confirmed the findings of the rent controller. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 18. 98 made in RCA No.12/1997 confirming the findings of the rent controller dated 4. 97 made in RCOP No.10/1996, the tenant has filed CRP.NPD.No.2102/1999.

6. After the dismissal of the RCOP No.10/1996 on 4. 97, the landlord filed RCOP No.32/1997 for evicting the tenant on the ground of owners occupation alone. The rent controller by order dated 8. 99 allowed the RCOP against which the tenant filed RCA No.10/99 and the appellate authority by order dated 10. 2001 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the rent controller. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority the tenant has filed the CRP.NPD.No.3871/2001.

7. Heard the