Admission of rent payment to the landlord's family member established the landlord's title, and the tenant's default in rent payment made him liable for eviction under the Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.R r/w Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act, 1955, to set aside the order dated 23.01.2014 in TCTP.No.65 of 2005 passed by Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the order passed by the Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector, Trichy rejecting his application for eviction of the cultivating tenant.

2. The petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 3(4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act 1955 for evicting the respondent on the ground that the tenant had sublet the property and he had not paid the rent for the past 8 years from 1996 -97 onwards.

3. The respondent had filed a counter and contending that he was the tenant of one Kannammal and after the death of the said Kannammal, he is paying rent regularly to one Jeyalakshmi. After the death of his mother, he is continuing as a cultivating tenant till date. He had further contended that the petitioner is not the only legal heir of Bashyam Iyengar and two other blood brothers of the petitioner have not been impleaded. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

4. The respondent had further contended that the petitioner is not the absolute title holder of the petition mentioned property and he is entitled only to a share in the rent. The tenant had clarified in his counter that he is not denying the petitioner''s limited title and share in the land but only denies his full and absolute title. He had not sublet the land to third parties but on the other hand, he is doing personal cultivation with the help of his family members. Though the respondent had denied the default in payment of rent, he has stated that he is ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent, if any, as per provisions of law.

5. The Revenue Court after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on either side, arrived at a finding that the petitioner has not produced the copy of the Will said to have been executed by one K.S.Rajagopalachari. Since the vested remainder under the said Will had predeceased the life interest holder, the petitioner has not established his title. The Revenue Court had further found that the petitioner had not established the title by producing the documents.

6. Based on the said findings, the eviction petition is dismissed by the Revenue Court. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

7. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the property in dispute originally belonged to one Rajagopalachari and he had executed a Will, whereunder he had bequeathed his property granting life interest to his wife Kannammal and vested remainder to his brother-in-law (wife''s brother Bashyam Iyengar). After death of Bashyam Iyengar, his wife Jeyalakshmi was in enjoyment of the property and receiving rents. The petitioner is one of the sons of Jeyalakshmi and therefore, he is entitled to file the present application for eviction. Even in the counter, the tenant has admitted his title but has only contended that the other sharers have not been impleaded. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the title or landlord and tenant relationship.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the tenant had admitted in the counter that he has paid the rent to Jeyalakshmi. The said Jeyalakshmi had passed away on 14.12.2001. Therefore, even as per the case of the tenant, he has not paid the rent till the date of filing of the eviction petition i.e. on 14.02.2005 by the petitioner. He had further contended that any one of the co-owners can the maintain eviction petition as against the tenant for subletting the property and for default in payment of rent.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant had contended that the revision petitioner has not filed a copy of the Wil