Eviction orders upheld when tenant's denial of landlord's title is deemed non-bonafide, supporting established ownership and grounds of willful default in rent payment.

ORDER :

These two revision petitions have been filed by the respondents in RCOP.No.1 of 2018 and 2 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ambasamudram challenging the concurrent order of eviction passed by the authority.

2. The respondent herein had filed RCOP.No.1 of 2018 for Shop No.14A. RCOP.No.2 of 2018 for Shop No.14 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default, owner's occupation, demolition and reconstruction.

3. The Rent Controller after considering the submissions on either side, had proceeded to allow the eviction petitions on all the grounds.

4. The tenant had filed RCA.Nos.2 & 3 of 2021 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram. The Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of eviction. Challenging the concurrent findings, the present civil revision petitions have been filed by the tenant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that Shop No.14 is located in the ground floor and 14A is located in the first floor. However, in the RCOP petitions, the landlord had contended that Shop No.14 is located on the western side and Shop No.14A is located on the eastern side as if both of them are located in the ground floor. This objection with regard to the identity and location of the property were raised before the appellate authority. An application was also filed for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner. However, the appellate authority has proceeded to dismiss the Advocate Commissioner application along with the delay and has proceeded to confirm the order of eviction.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the petition mentioned shops originally belonged to one Paramasivan and he had executed a settlement deed on 30.07.1972 granting life interest to his son Shanmuganantham and vested interest in favour of his grandson Sivasankar. The tenant had taken the shop on lease from the said Shanmuganantham 18 years back and he is paying rent to the said Shanmuganantham and his son Sivasankar. Therefore, the petitioner in RCOP or his vendor Jeyalakshmi do not have any title over the petition mentioned property. He had further contended that the said Sivasankar had filed O.S.No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram challenging the fraudulent sale deed and the said suit is pending.

7. The petitioner had further contended that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is paying rent to the said Shanmuganantham and his son Sivasankar. The sale deed in favour of the present petitioner in RCOP are forged documents.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord had contended that one Jeyalakshmi had filed O.S.No. 15 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram seeking partition of various items of properties including Shop Nos.14 and 14A which are the subject matter of the revision petition. The said suit was decreed in favour of Jeyalakshmi. Based upon the same, she had filed I.A.No.43 of 2007 for passing of a final decree. A final decree was passed on 20.10.2011. In the said final decree, the petition mentioned property namely Shop Nos.14 and 14A are shown as 27^th item in the first schedule and they were allotted to Jeyalakshmi. Based upon the the said final decree, the landlord has purchased the same from the said Jeyalakshmi by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.05.2014.

9. Since there was some mistake with regard to the boundaries, a rectification deed was executed by her on 16.11.2016. In the said suit, the ers