The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenants can be estopped from denying the landlord's title if they have previously admitted tenancy and rental payments. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the significance of proving willful default in rental payment for eviction cases.

1. The above Civil Revision Petitions are arisen from the order dated 13. 2007 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A. Nos.730 and 731 of 2004, whereby the order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P. Nos.92 and 91 of 1999 dismissing the Applications filed by the revision petitioner for eviction was reversed, by granting order of eviction.

2. Originally both the respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions filed R.C.O.P. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999 against the revision petitioners, alleging that the first respondent is the father of the petitioners and the sec respondent; that the premises bearing Door No.6, Bharathiswarar Colony Street, Kodambakkam originally belonged to the first respondent; that under a registered settlement deed dated 110. 1995, the first respondent settled the property in favour of the second respondent and thus the second respond is the absolute owner of the property; that the petitioners were tenants under the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-, besides electricity and water charges for residential purpose; that the petitioners failed to pay the rent from March, 1996 and committed willful default; that they are causing nuisance to the respondents and creating unpleasant scenes during night hours and that the property is required for demolition and for the purpose of new construction. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioners were to be evicted from the property.

3. Both the respondents filed their counter inter-alia stating that the alleged settlement deed dated 110. 1995, even if it was executed, was not valid. The respondents are not the owners of the property and the petitioners never cause any nuisance as alleged. The petitioners are making the payment Rs.100/-as maintenance charges, After marriage; they have been occupying a portion of the same property. They have also given a sum of Rs.30,000/- each to the first respondent in the year 1991-92 for altering and improving the petition mentioned property. The petitioners have been paying water charges and electricity charges regularly to the first respondent. The first respondent received maintenance charges upto January, 1999, but did not give any receipt. Only at the instance of the second respondent, the Present Petitions have been filed. There were no arrears of rent as on the date of Petition. The petitioner in C.R.P. No.1067 of 2007 also contributed a sum Rs.1,00,000/-to the first respondent on his request for construction of first floor. Hence, there is no need for demolition or new construction. All these averments made by the respondents in the Petitions were false. There was no ground to order eviction. Hence both the Petitions are to be dismissed.

4. The Rent Controller, on enquiry, dismissed both the Petitions, since no ground was made out. The aggrieved landlords took it on Appeal. The Appellate Forum on enquiry found that the respondents/landlords have made the ground of willful default and ordered eviction, though not prepared to accept other two grounds. The above Civil Revision Petitions are arisen at the instance of the revision petitioners/tenants.

5. In support of the Civil Revision Petitions, learned counsel Mr. Lakshminarayanan would submit that in the instant case, the property belongs to the joint family, in which the revision petitioners have got their respective shares; that they have filed a Suit for partition; that they have denied the exclusive title of either the first respondent or the second respondent in R.C.O.P. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999. Even assuming, settlement deed was executed, the possession should have been given to the second respondent, but the same was not acted upon. Even if it is true, the first respondent need not be added as party. There was no rental payment at any point of time either to the first respondent or to the second respondent. The petitioners made payments towards