ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition had been filed seeking to set aside the fair and final order of the learned Sub Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Tiruvarur, dated 10.03.2020 made in R.C.A.No.1 of 2018 confirming the fair and final order of the learned District Munsif (Rent Controller), Tiruvarur dated 20.11.2017 made in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014 and allow the above revision.

2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was not a tenant in the premises for which R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014 was filed by the Respondent claiming the property through the Will executed by land lady, as he was a permissive occupier. The Respondent had instituted the Petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and construction. He claimed that he had put on notice to the Petitioner herein, who is Respondent in R.C.O.P. as tenant, objected his tenancy. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014, the Petitioner filed a counter denying the status that he was not a tenant and he was permissive occupier. Therefore, the Rent Control Original Petition is not at all maintainable. In spite of the same, learned District Munsif (Rent Controller) Tiruvarur, ignoring the contentions of Petitioner herein as well as the evidence, decreed R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner herein/Respondent before the trial Court had filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2018. In the R.C.A also, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was rejected.

3.The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the grounds of Appeal, particularly, the grounds 9, 11, 20 to 24 which is not at all considered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller which was confirmed and allowed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3850 of 2009 wherein he relied on paragraphs 13, 14 and

17 to 19 which are extracted as under:

“13. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioners have claimed that the respondent was permitted to reside in the petition property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-.

On the other hand, the respondent contended that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and respondent. The respondent is residing in the petition property for more than 30 years prior to filing of R.C.O.P. The respondent has produced passbook issued by the society, EB card, property tax receipts and also letters addressed to her to show that she was residing in the petition property for more than 30 years. The petitioners have not proved that the said Unnamalai Ammal permitted the respondent to stay and look after her. On the other hand, the said Unnamalai Ammal was not residing in the petition property and explanations given by P.W.1 do not substantiate the claim of the petitioners. Both the Courts below rejected the evidence of the P.W.1. The petitioners have not stated and proved from which date the respondent has become tenant and from which date, the respondent had committed wilful default.

14. It is admitted by the petitioners that Unnalmalai Ammal died on 08.07.1994 and R.C.O.P..44 of 2001 was filed by the petitioners for eviction of the respondent in the year 2001 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for 18 months. The petitioners have not produced any documents to show that the respondent was paying the rent from the date of death of Unnamalai Ammal and subsequently committed wilful default. The Courts below, considering the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the petitioners have not proved the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and respondent.

17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in rent control proceedings, title of the propert