ORDER

The tenant has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District, in R.C.A.No. 24 of 2011.

2. Rent Control Original Petition No.3 of 2008 was filed by the landlord under Section 10 (2) (1) read with Section 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, complaining that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent and therefore, sought for his eviction.

3. The Rent Control Original Petition (RCOP) was contested by the appellant/tenant herein on the ground that, even though he was inducted as a tenant in the year 1994, he has paid rent upto the year 2004 without any default. Thereafter, the superstructure (hut) had suffered damages and therefore, he, on his own, had put up the superstructure and expenses thereon. The land where the superstructure was put up, is classified as a "Poramboke Land". Therefore, the landlord cannot claim exclusive right, title or interest thereof. Hence, the tenant prayed for dismissal of the said RCOP.

4. Before the learned Rent Controller, the landlord examined himself as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. Ex.P1 is the notice dated 21.05.2005 sent by the landlord. Ex.P2 is the reply notice dated 27.06.2005 given by the tenant. Ex.P3 is the another notice dated 13.07.2009 sent by the landlord. Ex.P4 is the deed of partition dated 27.03.1996 and Ex.P5 is the house receipt dated 09.05.1996. On the side of the tenant, no oral and documentary evidence and no documents were marked.

5. The learned Rent Controller, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that the land is classified as "Adimanai Koil Kulam Poramboke" (Tank Poramboke) and therefore, the landlord cannot claim any right, title or interest over such land. Furthermore, the landlord himself admitted in his cross examination that there was no agreement between the landlord and the tenant for letting out schedule mentioned premises, for rent. It was also observed that the landlord has not come forward with the correct facts and figures as to when the property was let out to the tenant, as to what was the period from which the tenant committed default in payment of rent etc., 6. On appeal filed by the landlord, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, on the ground that the tenant himself admitted that he was inducted in the year 1994 and he had paid the rent upto the year of 2004. Thereafter, since the superstructure (hut) got damaged, he constructed the superstructure on his own. As the land does not even belong to the landlord, the tenant is not liable to pay any rent. Having regard to the submissions made by the tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority concluded that the tenant cannot say that he was the tenant for some time and thereafter, he became the owner of the superstructure. When the tenant admitted that he has paid rent upto 2004 and thereafter, committed default in payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller ought not to have dismissed the Original Petition. Accordingly, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the land lord.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant vehemently contended that the subject matter of the property is classified as "Temple Poramboke" and therefore, the landlord cannot claim any right over it. The superstructure was constructed only by the tenant in the year 2004 and from the year 2005 onwards, there is no landlord-tenancy relationship. Further, the landlord has already filed RCOP.No. 3 of 2005 and the same was dismissed for default by the District Munsif Court, Ponneri. Therefore, the landlord is estopped from filing the present RCOP.No.3 of 2008 claiming willful default in payment of rent when no relationship between the landlord and the tenant exists and therefore, the order passed by the Rent Contro