ORDER :

(Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD) No.838/2021: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records in fair order dated 17.02.2020 made in O.S.S.R.No.14381 of 2019 on the file of I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, and to set aside the same and consequentially direct the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to number the suit.)

(Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3313/2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, to call for the records in judgment and decree dated 11.07.2019 made in RCA.No.649 of 2018 on the file of VIII Court of Small Causes at Chennai, confirming the order and decree dated 10.08.2018 against R.C.O.P. No.543 of 2014 on the file of XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai / Rent Control Authority and set aside the same and consequently dismiss the RCOP No.543 of 2014.)

(Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3514/2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, to set aside the order dated 11.07.2019 passed in RCA. No.660 of 2018 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 amended by Act 23 of 1973 by the XIII Small Causes Judge, Chennai dated 10.08.2018 in RCOP.No.548 of 2014.)

Preliminary Statement:

1.1. A certain Anantharaman had laid two separate petitions in R.C.O.P.No.543 of 2014 and R.C.O.P.No.548 of 2014 before the Rent Controller for eviction of his tenants J.R.Chandran and Desikan respectively principally under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (henceforth would be referred to as 'the Act'). Of these two tenants, J.R.Chandran also attempted to institute a suit against Anantharaman, but his plaint was not taken on record and was rejected.

1.2. Even though the two eviction petitions are founded on different causes of action as they are laid against two different tenants, the line of defence adopted by both the defendants are substantially similar, and hence this Court chose to dispose them of through a common order.

1.3. This order is divided into two parts. Part-I will deal with the civil revisions filed by J.R.Chandran and Part-II will deal with the revision petition filed by Desikan.

1.4. For the sake of convenience, Anantharaman would be referred to as the landlord, and J.R.Chandran and Desikan would be referred to as tenants.

Part-I

C.R.P.(NPD) No.3313 of 2019 & C.R.P.(NPD) No.838 of 2021

2.1. The tenant concerned is J.R.Chandran. The landlord had instituted R.C.O.P.No.543 of 2014 for eviction of the tenant for wilful default in paying the rent. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction vide his order dated 10.08.2018. Challenging the same, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No.649 of 2018 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and he lost it. Challenging the same, the tenant preferred C.R.P.(NPD) No.3313 of 2019.

2.2. While so, the tenant had laid a civil suit for declaration of his prescriptive title over the same premises of which he was inducted as a tenant. This was received by the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in OSSR.No.14381 of 2019. The learned I Assistant City Civil Judge rejected the suit vide her order dated 17.02.2020. This is challenged by the tenant in C.R.P.(NPD) No.838 of 2021.

2.3. The relevance of C.R.P.(NPD) No.838 of 2021, in the context of other C.R.P.(NPD) No.3313 of 2019, lies in the fact that part of the defence taken by the tenant forms the cause of action for his intended suit. This will be explained later.

A. CRP(NPD) No.3313 of 2019

3.1. This case has a background history and it is now introduced:

- Earlier, the tenant had laid R.C.O.P.No.1204 of 1998, a