The court emphasized the importance of establishing the bonafide nature of denial of title by the tenant and the burden of proof on the landlords to establish their right over the property.

This revision arises out of the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sub Court, Poonamallee in RCA No.7 of 2011.

2. The petitioners are the landlords of the property bearing Door No.326, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai. They filed an eviction petition against the respondent in RCOP No.2 of 1998 on the grounds of wilful default, denial of title and for demolition & re-construction.

3. The case of the landlords is that the respondent was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- but the tenant was irregular in payment of rent; that the tenant failed to pay rent from the month of September 1995 and he was in arrears of rent for he past 28 months. The landlords issued notice dated 11.10.1997 to the respondent to pay the arrears of rent and also for future rents, but the tenant failed to pay the rent even after receipt of notice. It is further contended that the tenant denied the title of the landlords, which is not bonafide and the building is 60 years old and it requires demolition and re-construction.

4. The tenant opposed the eviction petition contending that the petitioners are not the landlords and the respondent is not the tenant. The respondent further contended that the land is a poramboke land belonging to the Government and the building belongs to the respondent. The respondent's father had put up superstructure, obtained electricity service connection and the property was assessed for tax and he was paying the property tax. It is further stated that the petitioners attempted to dispossess the respondent and other three shop owners by force and hence the respondent filed suit in O.S.No.5 of 1997 against the petitioners and obtained interim injunction. The respondent is not liable to pay rent as the premises belongs to him and he also disputed the requirement of the petition premises for demolition and re-construction.

5. Before the Rent Controller, the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. After analysing the evidence o n record, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the grounds of willful default and denial of title while rejecting the ground of demolition and re-construction. Aggrieved by the order, the tenant filed an appeal in RCA No.7 of 2011. The Appellate Authority, allowed the appeal holding that the landlords have not established the jural relationship. Challenging the order of the appellate authority, the petitioners have preferred the present revision.

6. Mr. B.Harikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Appellate Authority erred in holding that there is a dispute with regard to title of the petition property; that the appellate authority have not properly appreciated the evidence on record before coming to the conclusion that the landlords have not produced any single document to establish the landlord – tenant relationship; that the tenant has admitted the relationship of the parties in Ex.P6, plaint filed in O.S.No.611 of 1995; that the Rent Controller, in a well considered order held that the landlords proved the relationship, however, the Appellate Authority, without assigning valid reasons reversed the finding of the Rent Controller.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the tenant has filed frivolous suits in O.S.No.5 of 1997, O.S.No.335 of 1997 and O.S.No.611 of 1995 only for bare injunction. The suit O.S.No.5 of 1997 was allowed to be dismissed for default on 07.10.1999 and O.S.No.335 of 1997 was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.09.2003. The suit in O.S.No.611 of 11995 was dismissed after trial on 15.07.2003. Ex.R18, decree passed in A.S.No. 21 of 2003 would show that the Subordinate Judge, Poonamalee has allowed the appeal granting decree in favour of the tenant restraining the landlords from evicting the tenant except by due process of law. Another suit filed by the tenant in O.S.No.230 of 2004 for bare injunction was also dismissed.

8. The learned counsel further contended that the tenan