2. Originally the deceased K.M.Gopal, an advocate, was in occupation of the petition schedule premises as tenant under the vendor of the sale deed dated 16. 1993 in favour of the Manimegalai, the petitioner in RCOP.No.18 of 2001. According to the petitioner/landlady in RCOP.No.18 of 2001 previous tenant K.M.Gopal was in occupation of the petition schedule building for a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. After K.M.Gopal, the present respondents 2 & 3 were in possession of the petition schedule building along with the first Respondent P.Shanmugam and R1 to R3 are advocates. R1 – P.Shanmugam died pending petition and R2 – K.Balakrishnan had already vacated the premises and now R3 is in occupation of the petition schedule building.

3. According to the petitioner, R3 has committed willful default in payment of rent and that the building is required for is own business. The first respondent had filed a counter, which was adopted by R2 & R3. The first respondent would admit that one Gopal and R1 were in occupation of the building as tenants, but subsequent to the sale deed dated 16. 1993 in favour of the land-lady the tenancy was not attorned in favour of the respondent and there wa