The importance of material evidence in establishing the jural relationship and willful default, and the impact of a pending partition suit on eviction proceedings.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.632 of 2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(a) The landlords, who are the petitioners in this revision, filed R.C.O.P.No.604 of 2009 before the learned Rent Controller/XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, for eviction of the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant on the grounds of willful default and for own use and occupation. The petitioners have contended that the first petitioner had become the absolute owner of the petition property by way of Gift Settlement Deed dated 08.08.1973, registered as Document No.2884/1973 by her father (Late) C.Gopal; that the first petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of settlement deed; that it was acted upon immediately and Patta was also issued in the name of the first petitioner in the year 1982 by the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk and the property was assessed in the name of the first petitioner and she was paying property tax, Water and Sewerage tax for the said property.

(b) It is further contended that out of love and affection, the first petitioner had settled the property in favour of the second and third petitioners retaining the life interest in the schedule property by Settlement Deed dated 08.10.2003. When the petitioners wanted to induct a tenant in the schedule property, the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi, who was the sister of the first petitioner, approached her to occupy the premises as a tenant pleading that she wanted to stay in the premises for a short time as she was constructing a new house. Hence, the first petitioner agreed to let out the premises to the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- in December 2005. The deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi was paying rent in the account of the first petitioner in State Bank of India, Chinmaya Nagar Branch in Account No.10222498022 till March 2006 and thereafter from November 2006, she has deposited the rent in the account of the second petitioner in M.C.C. Bank, Chinmaya Nagar Branch, Chennai, in Account No.3672. It is further contended that when the petitioners require the premises for their own use and occupation, the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant has not handed over vacant possession and also failed to pay rent from July 2008 till February 2009. Hence, the petition.

3. Resisting the petition, the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi filed counter alleging that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the suit filed for partition before this Court in C.S.No.1015 of 2008 is pending. The deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi has also denied the execution of the settlement deed in favour of the first petitioner.

4. Before the learned Rent Controller, the first petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. The deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi examined herself as R.W.1, but she has not produced any documents. Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked.

5. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi was a tenant and she has committed willful default in payment of rent and the requirement of the premises for own use and occupation is bona fide and allowed the eviction petition.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.632 of 2010 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller by allowing the appeal. Challenging the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present civil revision petition is filed.

7. Pending the Civil Revision Petition, the tenant viz., Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi died. Hence, her legal representatives were