Plea of adverse possession rejected.

This order shall govern the above civil revision petitions, six in number.

2. Challenging an order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, these civil revision petitions have been brought forth.

3. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. Originally, the respondents filed 16 RCOPs before the Rent Controller, seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of willful default, alleging that there was rental arrears from August, 1998 to December, 1998; that on 16 RCOPs., on enquiry, eviction was ordered; that all of them took it by way of 16 RCAs. and the order of the Rent Controller was affirmed on 14. 2005; that out of 16 tenants, 11 preferred revision petitions before this court; that a conditional order, at the time of initiation of proceedings before this court for depositing the arrears of rent was made, but it was complied by the revision petitioners herein and so far as the other revision petitioners are concerned, they have not complied with the order and under these circumstances, those petitions were dismissed and that so far as the above civil revision petitions are concerned, the court heard the learned counsel on either side and the following order is passed.

.4. The landlord/respondents herein filed RCOPs stating that the properties originally belonged to one Natesa Pillai; that he mortgaged the properties to one Flora Sam; that in view of non payment of mortgage amount, the properties were brought for sale; that one Renugopal Mudaliar has purchased the properties on court auction sale; that out of the said properties, a larger extent of 1359 sq. ft. area along with thatched hut were sold by Renugopal Mudaliar to the landlord/the respondents herein; that till July, 1998, rental payments were made and thereafter, there was no payment of rental and there was notice issued; that some of them received, but not replied and some of them refused to receive the same and under these circumstances, there arose a necessity for the landlord to file RCOPs for eviction. All the tenants had a common defence, stating that they have been in the property for the past four decades and they raised superstructure; that the properties neither belonged to the landlord nor there was any mortgage or sale of the property on court auction; that the said Renugopal Mudaliar did not become the owner of the property on court auction sale; that he did not execute sale deed in favour of the landlord and there was no landlord and tenants relationship between them and that all the petitions were to be dismissed. The evidence was adduced on both sides. After hearing both sides, the Rent Controller has passed an order of eviction. Aggrieved all the tenants took it on appeals and the appeals were dismissed. Not satisfied with the order of the appellate forum, the tenants have brought forth these civil revision petitions before this court.

5. The only contention that was raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners was that in the instant case what was stated before both the forum was there was no tenant landlord relationship; that the title of the landlord was denied; that when the title of the landlord was denied, a specific question as to the denial of title should have been raised and it should have been answered with a specific finding; and that it has not been done so and under these circumstances, not only the order of the Rent Controller, but also the order of the appellate forum were defective in nature. Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the tenants were able to show that they had electric service connection; that there were writ petitions filed, when there was denial by the electric Department to give electric service connection and thus, there was no payment of rental at any point of time and under these circumstances, factually also, the landlord and tenant relationship has not been proved by the respondents herein and under th