The court upheld the eviction based on the established ownership, landlord-tenant relationship, default in rent payment, and unauthorized conversion of the property.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to call for the records and set aside the order relating to the fair and decreetal order dated 12.07.2018 passed in RCA.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai), confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 11.02.2011 passed in RCOP.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk (Rent Controller).

1. Against the concurrent finding of eviction ordered by the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority, this revision petition is filed by the tenant.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is landlord. The respondent filed RCOP before the Rent Controller, for eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition mentioned property on the ground of wilful default and for different user. The Rent Controller considering the evidence on both sides, ordered eviction on both grounds. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant preferred RCA before the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and petitioner. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, considering the evidence on both sides, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, against which, the revision petitioner/tenant has filed this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would contend that PW1-power of attorney of the respondent in his cross examination has stated there was no rental agreement between the respondent and petitioner, thereby, there was no landlord- tenant relationship between the parties, but the Courts below without considering the same, erroneously held that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. He would further contend that the petition mentioned property originally belonged to one Shanmugampillai under whom, the father of the petitioner was tenant and later the revision petitioner and according to the respondent, he got title of the petition mentioned property through Ex.P3-will executed by Shanmugampillai in favour of his daughter Govindammal and her son Vallinathan/respondent herein and though the respondent contends that after the death of his mother Govindammal, he inherited the petition mentioned property, he was not examined to prove that he is the son of Govindammal and that the alleged will was executed in his favour. Thus, his title to the petition mentioned property was not established. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no necessity for executing the will by Shanmugam Pillai, because, after the death of Shanmugam Pillai, the entire property will devolve upon Govindammal and after her death to her son/respondent, but in order to grab the property of the said Govindammal, PW1/power of attorney of the respondent created the will which has not been proved and neither the respondent was examined to prove that he is the son of Govindammal nor evidence was let in to that effect.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that if the respondent is the owner of the petition mentioned property, he would have sent notice to the petitioner for collecting rent and PW1 also admitted to that effect that no notice was sent to the petitioner for collecting the rent. Therefore, there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. It is also contended that PW1/Kamaleshwaran collected rent from the revision petitioner as a power agent of the landlady Govindammal, which has been admitted by PW1 in his evidence. Thus, there was no default in payment of rent much less wilful default on the part of the petitioner. After the death of Govindammal, in order to grab the property of Govindammal, PW1 filed RCOP as if he is the husband of Govindammal. Ac