The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the rental agreement and the consequences of non-payment of rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25(1), (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960 read with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the learned Appellate Authority cum VIII Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai in RCA No.269 of 2017 confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller cum Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, in RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015 dated 20.02.2017.)

1. The respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P. No. 1120 of 2015 before the learned Rent Controller under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, for eviction of the revision petitioners from the property in question on the grounds of willful default and owner''s own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller allowed the RCOP. No.1120 of 2015 on the ground of willful default in payment of rent alone, but dismissed it insofar as the plea relating to owners own use and occupation. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2017 in RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015, the revision petitioners herein have filed RCA. No. 269 of 2017 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. By the Judgment dated 21.10.2021, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. As against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenants.

2.The respondent has filed R.C.O.P. No. 1120 of 2015 by contending that she is the owner of the property in question in which the revision petitioners herein were inducted as tenants. The property in question measuring about 150 sq.ft., situated at Door No.26, L.G.N. Road, Border Thottam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002 was acquired by her father by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 10.09.1982 and it was inherited by her from her father. Subsequently, on 10.02.1986, the revision petitioners herein were inducted as tenants by the respondent. As per the rental agreement dated 10.02.1986, the rent for the premises in question was fixed at Rs.35/- per month and a sum of Rs.100/- was paid as advance. While so, in the year 2012 it was decided by the respondent along with her brothers to demolish the existing superstructure and put up a new building thereon. Therefore, they have called upon the revision petitioners to vacate and hand over the property within two months. Even though the revision petitioners agreed to do so they did not vacate from the premises. When the respondent along with her brothers reiterated their demand for vacating the property, the revision petitioners threatened and abused the respondent and her brother. Therefore, the respondent has given a complaint on 16.03.2015 to the Inspector of Police, Anna Salai Police Station, however, the Police Officials did not take any action. While so, the second revision petitioner sent a notice dated 01.04.2015 making a rival claim over the property and asserted that the revision petitioners herein are the owners of the property and the respondent has no manner of right, title or interest over the same. On receipt of the notice dated 01.04.2015, the respondent sent a reply on 20.05.2015 repudiating the averments raised therein. Thereafter, the respondent has filed R.C.O.P. No.1120 of 2015 for eviction.

3.The Original Petition was contested by the revision petitioners by contending that they are in occupation and possession of the property in question for more than 60 years. It is stated that the revision petitioners were never in occupation of the property as a tenant under the respondent. The building in question is old and is in a dilapidated condition. The forefathers of the revision petitioners were in occupation of the premises and subsequently, they continued to remain in possession of the property. When the respondent attempted to evict the revision petitioners forcefully, they have given a complaint to