The denial of the landlord's ownership by the tenant triggers the application of Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, and the landlord must prove ownership to seek eviction.

1. Challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2004 and made in RCA.NO.42 of 2002 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Oothagamund).

2. The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this memorandum of civil revision are given as hereunder:

The revision petitioner is the owner of the non-residential premises bearing Door No.10/285 situated in Jagathala road, Jagathala Panchayat in Aruvankadu, Nilgiris. Originally, it was belonged to one D. Hiriya Gowder who is none other than the father of the revision petitioner and under his last Will and Testament dated 08.05.1986, he had bequeathed the above said property to the revision petitioner and thereby, he has become the owner of the above said premises.

3. When the revision petitioner's father was alive, the respondent herein had been inducted as a tenant. In respect of the above said premises, the monthly rent was determined at Rs.300/- and the tenancy was only oral. When the petitioner's father died on 05.04.1987, the revision petitioner was a minor. After the death of the revision petitioner's father, his mother had notified the respondent that the revision petitioner's late father had bequeathed the said premises in question to the petitioner and that as the petitioner was then a minor, the respondent was asked to pay the rent to the petitioner's mother on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, after the death of the father of the revision petitioner, the petitioner's mother had been collecting the rent on behalf of the petitioner. Even after the petitioner attaining majority, his mother had continued to collect the rent from the respondent and handed over the same to the petitioner. In the year 1995, the petitioner got married and subsequently moved to Ootacamund to her husband's house and evenafter her marriage, the revision petitioner's mother had been in the habit of collecting rent from the respondent on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent had committed default in the payment of rent for the period from 01.10.1997 to 30.04.1998 amounting to Rs.2,100/-

4. The conduct of the respondent is willfull and therefore a legal notice was issued to the respondent directing him to pay the arrears of rent from 01.10.1997 to 31.03.1998 amounting to Rs.1800/- and also to quit and deliver the vacant possession of his premises. However, the respondent had not either chosen to pay the arrears of rent or to quit and deliver the possession of the demised premises. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the petition in RCOP.No.42 of 1998 u/s 10 (2) (i) The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.

5. This petition was resisted by the respondent herein by filing his counter wherein he has stated that he has been running a Typewriting Institute in the said premises and after the death of D.Hiriya Gowder, he began paying the monthly rent in respect of the premises to the widow Chennamma as she had asked the respondent to attorn the tenancy to her and thereafter, he had been paying the monthly rent to her.

6. He has further contended that he had never been notified either about the said bequest or to attorn the tenancy to the petitioner. The respondent was also not informed that the monthly rent was collected by the said Chennamma on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent had recognized the mother of the revision petitioner as a landlady. Apart from this, he has also contended that the petitioner's mother used to collect the monthly rent through her son, Ravi who is the petitioner's brother and all rents upto June, 1998 were paid to the revision petitioner's mother through the said Ravi and only on receipt of the notice in respect of RCOP, the respondent refrained from handing over the monthly rent to the petitioner's brother, Ravi and therefore, he never committed, any kind of default in the payment of monthly rent as alleged in the petition.

7. The revision petitioner as well as her mother were