ORDER :

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 seeking to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 01.10.2017 made in R.C.A.No.4 of 2016 passed by the learned IX Small Cause Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority at Chennai by reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2015 made in R.C.O.P.No.904 of 2014 passed by the learned XVI Small Causes Judge cum Rent Controller at Chennai.

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The revision has been filed seeking to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 01.10.2017 made in R.C.A.No.4 of 2016 passed by the learned IX Small Cause Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai by reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2015 made in R.C.O.P.No.904 of 2014 passed by the learned XVI Small Causes Judge cum Rent Controller, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to as landlord and tenant.

3. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlord. The landlord had filed R.C.O.P.No.904 of 2014 before the Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(1) of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act stating that the father of the landlord was a hereditary Trustee of Siddi Buddi Sundara Vinayagar Sri Lakshmi Amman Devasthanam and absolute owner of two shops bearing Old Nos.158 and 159, New Nos.198/2 and 198/3, Strahans Road, Pattalam, Chennai-600 012 and the tenancy was in respect of petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.7000/- for each shop for commercial purpose and that the tenant was a chronic defaulter in payment of rents and that he had lastly paid the rent for March 2012 and thereafter she failed and neglected to pay the rents from April 2012 to April 2014 aggregating to Rs.2,80,000/-. Thereafter, the landlord had sent a notice claiming the rents. But the tenant received the same, however, not replied.

4. The tenant filed a counter stating that the petitioner in the R.C.O.P. is neither landlord nor the owner of the petition premises and there is no landlord-tenant relationship between them and as such, she is not liable to pay any rent to the petitioner. It was further contended in the counter that the petition premises was bought by her late father R.Rajendran from the erstwhile owner for a valid sale consideration and thereby, the tenant's father became the absolute owner of the two shops namely the petition premises.

5. On the side of the landlord, he was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the tenant, her mother was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.

6. The Rent Controller, after hearing both the parties, finding that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, had dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal of R.C.O.P., the landlord had filed R.C.A.No.4 of 2016. Since, the tenant was not present before the Court, the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by non-speaking order dated 25.10.2016.

7. Against the order dated 25.10.2016, the tenant filed C.R.P.(NPD) No.60 of 2017 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 22.03.2017, allowed the revision petition and remitted the matter back to decide the matter on merits.

8. Thereafter, the Appeal was taken on file. During the pendency of the Appeal, the landlord filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act to receive the Corporation Assessment in respect of the petition premises dated 1.2.2016 as additional document. The petition was numbered as M.P.No.345 of 2017. Thereafter, without any orders being passed on the Miscellaneous Petition, the matter was adjourned and on 05.10.2017 and the learned Judge had posted matter to be decided along with the main R.C.A. Thereafter, it had been adjourned to several days and that on 01.11.2017, the Appellate Authority allowed M.P.No.345 of 2017 and on the same day, placing reliance of the addit