The main legal point established in the judgment is that the title passes to the purchaser immediately after the sale deed is executed, and the deposit of rent in court cannot be considered as a valid tender.

1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. 5 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller, Mannargudi is the revision petitioner. Landlords filed application for eviction of tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also in the ground that they need scheduled building for their own occupation, i.e., for the occupation of their daughter and son-in-law, who are dependants on them.

2. Material averments in the eviction petition are thus. Scheduled building originally belonged to one Abdul Subban and Abdul Samad. Both of them leased out the property to respondent. As per registered sale deed dated 12.10.1992 (Ex.P1) Abdul Subban and Abdul Samed sold the properties to petitioner. Adjoining property also belongs to very same persons which was occupied by one Rasu Chettiar. Sale deed dated 12.10.1992 covers that portion also. After purchase, Rasu Chettiar vacated the premises and landlords obtained possession. According to landlords, they purchased the property only to accommodate their daughter and son in law who are residing in a rented building at Mannargudi and they wanted this building to accommodate them. It is also said that whenever they come to India, they also want to occupy the building along with their daughter. After Ex.P1 was executed, the fact was informed to tenant as per registered notice dated 26.8.1993 calling upon tenant to attorn the tenancy, According to landlord after they purchased the property, rent was not paid and in spite of notice dated 26.8.1993, no rent was paid by tenant. Rate of rent according to landlords in Rs. 650/- and on the date of eviction petition more than Rs. 17,550/- was due towards rent arrears. Eviction petition was therefore filed for eviction of tenant.

3. In the counter statement filed by tenant he admitted that he became tenant under Abdul Subban and Abdul Samad. But according to him, rate of rent is not Rs. 650, but 250/- He further said that Abdul Samad had entered into an agreement for sale with one Swaminathan and at the request of Abdul Samad, rent was paid to Swaminathan. He also alleged that after receipt of notice, he used to deposit rent in court. According to him, he is not defaulter and admitted rent is being paid. Regarding claim for eviction for bona fide own occupation, it is not answered in the counter statement.

4. Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence. Exs.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of landlords and Exs.R1 were marked on the side of tenant. Oral evidence consists of PW.1 and 2 RWs. 1 and 2.

5. After evaluating entire evidence, Rent Controller held that tenant is defaulter in payment of rent and said default is wilful. Rent Controller took the view that there is no explanation offered by tenant for not paying rent even after Ex.P2 notice. It further held that tenant was paying rent to Swaminathan also cannot be believed even though Swaminathan has been examined as RW2. Rent Controller believed the evidence of P.W.2 owner of the property and held that rate of rent is only Rs. 650/-. Rent Controller also found that landlords require building for their own occupation i.e., for occupation of their daughter and son-in-law.

6. Aggrieved by the order, tenant preferred R.C.A. 1 of 1997 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Nagapattinam. Appellate Authority also reconsidered the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal and allowed eviction giving two months time to vacate the premises. It is against the concurrent findings of authorities below, tenant has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act.

7. I heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

8. One of the contentions that was raised by learned Counsel for petitioner is that eviction petition itself is not maintainable and should have been thrown out at the threshold since the person who has filed the eviction petition is not competent to file the same. The argument is that landlords are represented by power agent Kalaiselvi and learned counsel submitted that power of attorney is