The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for tenants to establish the landlord-tenant relationship and the principle of wilful default in payment of rent.

1. The revision petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 6.12.1995 in R.C.A.No.2/94 passed by the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority viz; Learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, in allowing the Rent Control Appeal by setting aside the order dated 12.09.1994 in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 passed by the Learned Rent Controller,viz; Learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam.

2. The learned Appellate Authority viz., learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam while passing orders in R.C.A.No.2 of 1994 on 6.09.1995 has held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between Sambasiva Chettiar and Gopal Chettiar and further held that the tenants denial of lanlords right was not bona fide and came to the conclusion that the Gopal Chettiar was not a person who deliberately failed to tender his monthly rent and also held that the petition mentioned property was required for own use of the landlord and resultantly allowed the appeal without costs by granting two months time to hand over the possession.

3. The Rent Controller viz; the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam while passing orders in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 filed by the respondents/landlords came to the conclusion that in regard to the petition mentioned property, it was not established that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and consequently dismissed the Original Petition without costs.

4. The learned counsel for revision petitioners/tenants urges before this Court that the order of the First Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.2 of 1994 dated 6.12.1995 in reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller passed in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 dated 12.09.1994 is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case and further, the First Appellate Authority committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that the petition mentioned building was required for owners occupation by placing reliance on the report of the Commissioner in I.A.No.182 of 1974 in O.S.No.468 of 1971 to which the revision petitioners are not parties. Further, the Landlords had not filed even a single rent receipt or kist receipt etc. to prove the tenancy and they had not discharged their burden of proving the relationship as Landlord and Tenant between the parties. Moreover, the house in which the respondents reside was very much sufficiently a big one which could accommodate more than four families and that apart, there was no rental agreement, no rental receipts and in this regard there was absence of any tangible evidence, and these had not been adverted to or appreciated by the First Appellate Authority in a proper perspective and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

5. It is useful for this Court to refer to main Rent Control Original Petition No.9 of 1990 filed by the deceased landlord G.S.Sambasiva Chettiar as petitioner under Section (2) (i) and Section 10(3)(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act wherein it was mentioned among other things that the petition mentioned building originally belonged to the family of the original petitioner consisting of himself and his brothers and that it was a joint family property. Subsequently, one of the brother viz; Bala Krishna Chettiar filed the suit for partition of the joint family property in O.S.No.205 of 1982 against the original petitioner and others. In the said suit after a prelilminary decree, a final decree was passed in I.A.No.939 of 1982 on 26.04.1988 and that the petiton mentioned premises was allotted to the original revision petitioner and after the final decree, the orginal petitioner was the absolute owner of the petition mentioned premises.

6. Also, in the original Rent Control Petition it was averred that the original tenant Gopal Chettiar viz; (husband and father of the revision petitioners 1 to 4) entered into an oral agreement in respect of the petition menti