ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.71 of 2014 in A.S.No.21 of 2013 dated 24.08.2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai, thereby, allowing the petition to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit.

2. The petitioners are the respondents in A.S.No.21 of 2013 and the respondent is the appellant in the Appeal Suit. The respondent originally filed a suit for ejection, thereby directing the petitioners herein to surrender possession of the suit property and put the respondent into possession of the suit property and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal suit. While pending the appeal suit, the respondent filed a petition seeking permission of the Appellate Court to withdraw the suit filed by him with liberty to file a fresh suit. The same was allowed and aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent already filed the eviction petition. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and also confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.2587 of 1997 and this Court by an order dated 27.11.1998 allowed the Civil Revision Petition by observing that the property, assuming that it belonged to the respondent, is a Public Charitable Property and the Rent Control Act will not apply. When the Revision Petitioners denied relationship of landlord and tenant, it was incumbent for the respondent to have established by un-impeachable evidence that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioners but the respondent had failed to establish. After dismissal of the eviction petition, the respondent again come forward with the suit for ejectment directing the petitioners to surrender possession of the suit property. The present suit is also filed only on the ground that there is landlord and tenant relationship between them and even till today they did not pay any rent for the suit property and the petitioners are in huge arrears of rent even prior to the termination of tenancy. The said suit was also dismissed on the ground that the respondent failed to prove him as landlord in respect of the suit property and he failed to produce any document to show that the respondent is the owner of the property.

4. The trial Court also held that when the respondent failed to prove his ownership in respect of the suit property he has no right to lease out the suit property in favour of the petitioners herein. Therefore, all the issues framed by the trial Court were answered in favour of the petitioners and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal suit and while pending the appeal suit, the respondent filed a petition to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, that too without setting aside the decree passed against him by the trial Court. The first Appellate Court without considering those aspects simply allowed the petition and permitted the respondent to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. In support of his contentions he also relied upon the judgment reported 2000 (III) CTC 558 (Bhoopoathy, K.S. -vs- Kokila).

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when the respondent filed a suit for ejectment, the trial Court ought not to have gone into the question of title over the suit property. The findings of the Court below is completely alien to the suit filed on the relationship of the landlord and tenant. He further submitted that the suit property admittedly is a public charitable property and the petitioners failed to pay any rent even till today and simply enjoying the property. He further submitted that the suit is valued under Section 43 (2) of the Court Fees Act and as suc