Relationship of landlord and tenant present.

1. The petitioner/landlord who got an order of eviction before the Rent Controller and failed before the appellate authority, has filed the above revision.

2. The landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 1989 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Erode under Secs.10(2)(i), 10(2)(vii), 10(3)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the respondents/tenants. According to him, the demised property originally belonged to one S.Gouthaman and it was leased out to the second respondent therein for a monthly rent of Rs.650, and the second respondent therein was carrying on business in the said premises as a shroff merchant. Respondents 2 to 4 herein are his sons, who formed themselves into a partnership under the name and style of A.V.G. Ponnuswany Chettiar and Sons. According to the landlord, he purchased the property in question on 15.7.1988 under a registered sale deed. On 18.7.1988 he sent a letter to the 2nd respondent therein/tenant asking to pay the future rent to the petitioner/landlord. In spite of repeated demand, according to the petitioner, in person and through registered notice dated 5.12.1988, the tenant/2nd respondent therein did not pay the rent. So, according to him, the said default is wilful and so the respondents therein are liable for eviction. The landlord also has sought for eviction on the ground that the premises is required for his own occupation for carrying on his shroff and pawn broker business. He has also stated in the petition that for the reply to the notice dated 5.12.1988 the tenant has raised several false allegations that the premises is a trust property, and the vendor has no right to alienate the property to the petitioner and thereby the petitioner did not acquire any right or title over the property in question. Since the tenant had denied the title which is not a bona fide one, he is liable for eviction on that ground also. He has also sought for eviction on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. An affidavit was also filed by the petitioner stating that he is having sufficient funds for constructing a new building after demolition and he produced the photostat copies of the approved plans and licence granted by the municipality. He has also given an undertaking in the said affidavit which is required under law.

3. The respondents therein filed counter stating that the property in question does not belong to the said Gouthaman, and the property is a trust property, and the tenant was paying the rent to the trustees in management. The sale of the property by the said Gouthaman to the petitioner ipso facto invalid and void. No right title, or interest will pass on under the alleged sale to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to claim as the owner of the building and he cannot satisfy the definition of landlord. With respect to the bona fide requirement of the building for his own occupation, the respondents denied the averments contained in the petition. In the additional counter filed by the third respondent which was adopted by the other respondents it is stated that the property in question is a public trust and as per G.O.No.2000, Home Department, dated 16.8.1976, the said property is exempt from the purview of the Act 18 of 1960 and so the petition is not maintainable. Regarding default in payment of rent, it is stated that there is no wilful default in payment of rent and the building is in good condition and so it does not require immediate demolition and reconstruction. An advocate-commissioner was appointed at the instance of the petitioner and after inspection he filed the report. The Rent Controller in the order dated 4.11.1991 found that the denial of title is not a bona fide one, that the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent, that the building is required for the petitioners own occupation and that the building requires immediate dem