O R D E R

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2015 made in R.C.A.No.622 of 2011 on the file of the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, reversing the order and decree dated 20.09.2011 passed in R.C.O.P.No.432 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2.The petitioner is tenant and respondent is landlord. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.432 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default. According to the respondent, the petition property belongs to her father K.K.Dominic. After his death, his second wife Theyamma, her sister Priya Kumari Ferrandi and the respondent became owners of the petition premises. Theyamma was managing the property. She died on 19.10.2008. After her death, the respondent asked the petitioner to pay the rent to her. The petitioner informed her that he paid rent to Theyamma up to November, 2008 and he has to pay only for December, 2008. The respondent requested the petitioner to attorn tenancy with respect to petition premises in her favour and called upon the petitioner to pay the rent to her. The petitioner did not attorn tenancy and did not pay the rents. The respondent issued notice on 06.11.2008, through her Advocate, to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to attorn tenancy and also to pay the rent from December, 2008. The petitioner did not attorn the tenancy, not paid rent, has committed wilful default and hence, filed petition for eviction of petitioner.

3.The petitioner filed counter statement, denying all the averments in the petition. The petitioner submitted that K.K.Dominic is not the owner of the petition premises. Only Theyamma was owner of the property. She was controlling the property as owner. The petitioner denied that Theyamma was only managing the property after death of K.K.Dominic. Till her death, the petitioner paid rent to her. After her death, he paid rent to one V.B.Chandran, Executor of the Will dated 31.07.2006. The said V.B.Chandran issued receipts for payment of rent by the petitioner. The respondent has no right over the property and no right to collect rent from the petitioner. The petitioner has not recognized the respondent as his landlord. The petitioner denied the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and petitioner and prayed for dismissal of R.C.O.P.

4.Before the learned Rent Controller, one E.Feroze Khilji, Power Agent of the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one P.Baskaran was examined as P.W.2 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and marked 6 documents as Exs.R1 to R6.

5.The learned Rent Controller, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the R.C.O.P., holding that:

(i) The Executor of Will is agent of landlord and has right to collect the rent.

(ii) The respondent failed to prove the existence of landlord-tenant relationship.

(iii) Even though the respondent is co-owner and is entitled to maintain the petition and collect rent, she failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship and petitioner is paying rent to the Executor, under Ex.R5 – Will dated 31.07.2006, including for alleged default period and there is no wilful default.

Against the said order dated 20.09.2011 made in R.C.O.P.No.432 of

2009, the respondent filed R.C.A.No.622 of 2011.

6.The learned First Appellate Judge, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and order of the learned Rent Controller, allowed the R.C.A., by reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller and ordered eviction, granting two months time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over the petition premises to the respondent.

7.Against the said judgment dated 03.07.2015 made in R.C.A.No.622 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.432 of 2009, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

8.The learned