The brief facts of the case is as follows:

1. According to the respondent/landlady, the respondent herein/ landlady has filed RCOP No.1482 of 2009 before the Rent Controller (XII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai. The revision petitioners are brought on record as the legal heirs of one S. Vadivel, respondent/tenant before the Rent Controller. The deceased Vadivel was a tenant of the demised property bearing door No.4, Abdul Sukkur street, Pudupet, Chennai under the respondent/ Landlady. The petitioner/tenant has committed default in payment of rent of Rs.2000/- per month from January, 2007 till this date. The respondent/ landlady demanded the petitioner/tenant to vacate the schedule mentioned premises for her own use and occupation of the family members. The revision petitioner/tenant has filed counter affidavit wherein he denied that he is a tenant under the respondent herein/landlady and claimed that the RCOP is not maintainable on facts. On the side of respondent/landlady, she was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 was marked. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant. The Rent Controller come to the conclusion that the respondent/revision petitioner is a tenant under the petitioner/landlady and he is also subject to the Rent Control Act and held that the petitioner has proved her case under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, but rejected the claim under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and directed the revision petitioner/tenant to pay rental arrears from January 2007 to August 2010 at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month totalling Rs.88,000/- to the petitioner/landlady/respondent herein on or before 27.9.2010 failing which the petition will be allowed on the ground of wilful default. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai R.C.A.No.638 of 2010.

2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority recorded a finding that both sides have not produced sale agreement said to have been entered into between the parties. In the RCOP, the revision petitioner/tenant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to disprove the contentions of the landlady/ respondent herein. The Appellate Authority has held that the alleged sale agreement can be enforced under court of law by way of specific performance suit. In the absence of any material, the contentions of the revision petitioner/tenant that the trial Court failed to apply provisions under Section 53(a) of the Transfer of Property Act was rejected. The Appellate Court relied upon the judgment in S. Venkatesulu Vs. V. Chandra and two others reported in 1997(3) CTC 39, wherein it was held as under:

''Sections 11(4) & 23 of Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, landlord and tenant entering into agreement of for sale of property occupied by tenant, tenant is bound to pay rent even if landlord enters into agreement of sale unless there is specific recital not to pay rent in sale agreement.

3. The Appellate Court has held that proceedings in RCOP is a summary trial proceedings based on the issues of the owner's and tenant rights only. The Appellate Court rejected the contention raised by the appellant under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act stating that the alleged agreement for sale can be enforced under court of law by specific performance only and also the triable issues involves that whether the agreement for sale is genuine or not. Hence, Section 53(a) of the Transfer of Property Act shall not support his claim.

4. Both the courts below have held that the revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent/landlady. In the judgment passed in suit in O.S.No.9383 of 2005, it was held that the respondent was tenant and an agreement holder. Pursuant to the said judgment in the suit, the alleged sale agreement was not enforced by the revision petitioner/tenant