The eviction of a tenant can be justified based on wilful default, evidenced by non-payment of rent, regardless of claims about the landlord's identity or agreements made post-tenancy.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Challenging the concurrent finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the original order of the Rent Controller ordering eviction on the ground of wilful default and owners occupation, these Revisions are filed.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of these revisions are follows:

2.a. RCOP Nos.1317 of 2015 and 1318 of 2015 were filed against the petitioner herein under Sections 10 (3) (a) (iii) and 10 (2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 with respect to the first floor; second floor and ground floor portion of the property respectively at Choolaimedu, Chennai.

2.b.The revision petitioner is an advocate by profession was inducted as tenant by one Parsanchand who is the husband of the first respondent and father of the 2^nd respondent in respect of ground and second floor on 15.11.2006 for monthly rent of Rs.6050/- and Rs.50,000/- as security deposit. Subsequently, first floor was let out to him for a rent of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.45,000/- as security deposit, totalling rent of sum of Rs.11,500/- of all the floors. The said Parsanchand died on 07.04.2009. On 08.01.2014, the legal heirs of the deceased Parsanchand executed a release deed dated 08.01.2014 relinquishing their share of the petition property in favour of the 2^nd respondent. After his death, the second respondent was receiving the rent for premises from the respondent till January 2015. The second respondent by letter dated 19.02.2015 requested the revision petitioner to pay the rents from February 2015 onwards to him and also requested to handover the vacant possession of the scheduled property to him since the same is required for his own use and occupation as 2^nd respondent intends to shift his residence and business to Chennai from Tiruttani. However, by letter dated 03.03.2015, the revision petitioner had denied the allegations and has not paid the rents from February 2015 and committed wilful default.

2.c.Further, it is the case of the second respondent that the petitioner has committed acts of waste in the first and second floor portion by doing changes without written permission or consent of the second respondent. It is also stated that the the second respondent do not own any other immovable property in Chennai other than the premises let out to revision petitioner. Therefore, the above RCOPs were filed on the ground of wilful default, own occupation and the tenant has committed acts of waste.

2.d. It was the contention of the revision petitioner in the counter that the landlord and tenant relationship does not exist between the petitioner and the respondent. The revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant by one Parsanchand in respect of all the floors in the subject property. Further, the death of the landlord was not brought to the notice of the petitioner until 19.02.2015, the material particulars of change to the building portions occupied by the revision petitioner have not been given by the respondents. There are other legal heirs of late Parsanchand besides the respondents. There is a bonafide dispute and doubt as to who should receive the rent. The petitioner has sent rent by cheque drawn only in the name of Parsanchand and the same has been stated at the back of every single cheque presented every month as rental payments. Now, the respondents have altered the names found in the cheque by inserting the names of the 1^st respondent and wife of the second respondent. The revision petitioner is not aware of the release deed dated 08.01.2024, the respondents have not chosen to explain how the landlord's wife can collect the rent from the tenants after the execution of the release deed.

2.e. The second respondent is running a well established business in Tiruttani for the last 25 years, besides, owns several house properties and shops at Tiruttani and Chennai. No reason is given for shifting the residence and business from Tiruttani to Chennai particularly when the proposed shi