ORDER :

The respondent in R.C.O.P.No. 162 of 2009 on the file of XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner herein.

2. R.C.O.P.No. 162 of 2009 had been filed for eviction under Sections 10(2)(vii) and 19(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act 1960), seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of owners occupation and wrongful denial of title.

3. By order dated 01.03.2018, the petition was allowed on both the grounds and eviction was directed. The respondent then filed R.C.A.No. 460 of 2018 before the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai. Pending the Rent Control Appeal, the landlady filed M.P.No. 207 of 2018 under Section 11(4) of the Act claiming that the rents have not been paid amounting to Rs.13,80,000/- up to the month of May 2018. By order dated 19.02.2019, the tenant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- into Court on or before 19.03.2019. Thereafter, the Rent Control Appeal was taken up for hearing and by Judgment dated 08.01.2021, the Appeal was dismissed and the order of the learned Rent Controller was affirmed and eviction was directed. Questioning that Judgment, the present Civil Revision has been filed.

4. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.S.Jaganathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The respondent entered appearance through caveat and it is the grievance expressed that about Rs.14/- lakhs is due towards rent. The learned counsel for the petitioner however raised objections stating that there is no landlord/tenant relationship. The petitioner questioned the sale deed of the year 1994 and stated that a suit had been filed questioning the said sale deed that the suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 2011. This Court had called upon the petitioner to express bona fide by paying the arrears of rent. However, the revision petitioner did not come forward to pay the arrears.

6. R.C.O.P.No. 162 of 2009 had been filed by the respondent herein seeking eviction on the ground that the petitioner premises is used for own occupation and also on the ground that the petitioner herein had denied the title of the respondent. The petition premises is building and ground bearing Plot No.8, Door No. 18 Vth Main Road Extension, Bhakthavathsalam Nagar, admeasuring 1760 sq.f.t. It had been stated that the property was purchased by the respondent herein by a sale deed dated 22.12.1994 registered as document No. 2337 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Adyar. The vendor was the petitioner herein/respondent in the Rent Control Petition. Thereafter, the Vendor/revision petitioner requested time to vacate and therefore, a tenancy agreement was entered on 06.01.1998. The entire house was rented out for a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. That was increased to Rs.12,000/-.

7. Originally R.C.O.P.No. 814 of 2008 had been filed and the revision petitioner took a stand that he was not a tenant and that he was a mortgagor and denied the title of the respondent herein. The respondent claimed that he does not have any other residence in Chennai, and that he is living with his son, who is also married and who has children. Therefore, he required the premises for his own occupation. The Rent Control Petition was therefore filed on the ground of owners occupation and also for eviction on the ground of denial of landlord/tenancy relationship. R.C.O.P.No. 814 of 2008 was dismissed for non-prosecution.

8. The respondent filed an application seeking liberty to a file fresh Rent Control Petition. However that application was dismissed since the fresh Rent Control Petition was filed on a different ground than for what R.C.O.P.No. 814 of 2008 was filed.

9. A counter was filed in the main Rent Control Petition. It was stated that the request had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- in 1995 by executing a deed of sale registered as Document No. 2337 of 1995 with the Sub Registrar Office, Adyar, Chennai, conveying the house ground and