ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, (herein after called as Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A.No.10 of 2015, confirming the order dated 27.03.2013 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Kattumannarkoil, (herein after called as Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003, thereby ordering eviction on the ground of willful default.

2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord.

The respondent (herein after called as “landlord”) filed petition for eviction on the ground of willful default and owner's occupation of the petition premises. The case of the landlord is that the petition premises is belonged to him and the tenant and his brother approached the landlord to lease out the petition premises for their residential purpose. The landlord agreed for the same and fixed monthly rent at Rs.100/- per month and executed lease agreement dated 29.01.1998. The tenant agreed to pay the rent at Rs.100/- per month and also agreed to vacate the petition premises after expiry period of the lease agreement. The tenant failed to pay the monthly rent even from the date of inception of tenancy and despite the landlord made repeated request, the tenant did not pay the rent thereby committed willful default. The tenant made the petition premises to conduct his own business as such, the landlord filed petition for eviction on the ground of willful default and owner's occupation.

3. Resisting the same, the tenant filed counter stating that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and respondent herein and denied the title and ownership of the petition premise. The rental agreement dated 29.01.1998 was never executed by the tenant and also disputed the signature found in the lease agreement dated 29.01.1998. The landlord is having several residential and non-residential properties in and around Kattumanarkoil and Chidambaram and therefore, requirement of landlord is not bonafide one. Further stated that the petition premises is in the government poromboke land and for the past 60 years, the tenant and his predecessors are in possession and enjoyment of the petition premises. In fact, the tenant's father encroached the land in which the petition premises is situated and constructed the thatched house and stayed there. The land is classified as government poromboke and therefore, the tenant need not pay any rent to the petition premises. In fact, they also applied for patta from the government for the petition premises and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

4. On the side of the landlord, he examined P.W.1 & P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. On the side of the tenant he examined R.W.1 to R.W.3 and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. On the basis of the evidence available on records and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation and allowed the petition for eviction on the ground of willful default. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of willful default. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the scope and ambit of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the same has not been applied to the town panchayat as such, the petition itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The specific case of the tenant is that there is no landlord-tenant relationship, since the tenant's father encroached the property which classified as government poromboke and put up the thatched house. Therefore, there is no landlord- tenant relationship and the tenant need not to pay any rent t