A non-bona fide denial of landlord's title by a tenant justifies eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

ORDER :

Challenge has been made against Order of the appellate authority setting aside the Order of eviction of the Rent Control Court and remanding back the matter for fresh adjudication, the present revision has been filed.

2. The revision petitioner has filed a petition under section 10[2][i] of the Tamilnadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent is a tenant under him for a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. The respondent has committed willful default from March 2011. After repeated demands, he has paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards arrears of rent. The respondent has to pay arrears of Rs.52,000/- from April 2013 to March 2023. Despite the legal notice issued in this regard, the arrears of rent has not been paid. Hence, a petition has been filed to evict the tenant.

3. In the counter, it is the case of the respondent that there was no jural relationship between himself and the landlord and he was inducted into possession by one Meenakshi Aachi on account of usufructuary mortgage . According to him, he paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Therefore, he deny the jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

4. The rent controller, taking note of the fact that despite several opportunities given to the respondent, he has not cross examined PW.1 and considering the fact that delaying tactics adopted by the respondent, allowed the petition. Challenging the same, an appeal has been filed before the rent control appellate authority. The appellate authority has set aside the Order of the rent controller mainly on the ground that rent controller has not decided the issue properly and the matter has been remanded to the rent controller. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly would submit that the respondent is practicing lawyer and he denied the title of the landlord by suppressing material facts. It is his further contention that plea taken by the respondent is not a bonafide one and his contention is that he occupied the building on the basis of usufructuary mortgage with one Meenakshi Aachi, who is non other than the grandmother of the revision petitioner is nothing but false. The very plea that he was inducted into possession by Meenakshi Aachi in the year 2011 itself is false. Ex.B.7 death certificate of the Meenakshi Aachi indicate that the said Meenakshi Aachi died in the year 1988 itself.

6. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that originally the petitioner was set exparte and thereafter, an application has been taken out to set aside the exparte Order and the said application has been allowed. Not stopping with that, in order to drag on the proceedings an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to reject the petition and the same has been dismissed. Thereafter, despite the opportunity given to the respondent, cross examination has not been done. Therefore, the rent controller has allowed the petition after analysing the documents filed by the petitioner. Hence, submitted that the rent controller has rightly ordered eviction and the Order of the appellate authority has to be set aside.

7. Whereas, the respondent has denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and this aspect has not been considered by the rent controller. In support of his contentions he relied on the judgment in Kanaklota Das and others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and others reported in AIR Supreme Court 682. Further it is his contention that respondent may be given opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 to prove his contention.

8. Heard both sides and perused entire materials available on record.

9. The petitioner has filed a petition for eviction of the respondent on the ground of willful default. It is the categorical stand of the petitioner that the respondent was a tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- and he had committed default from the year 201