ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A.No.368 of 2014 on the file of the learned IX Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 17.06.2014 in R.C.O.P.No.1503 of

2011 on the file of the learned XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.R.C.O.P.No.1503 of 2011 was filed by the deceased respondent/landlord Abdul Jawad under Section 10 (2) (VII) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. The respondent's mother Mrs.Khyroon Bi Sahiba was the owner of the petition mentioned premises. The petitioner's father late M.A.Jacob had entered into registered lease agreement with the mother of the respondent on 10.11.1967 for a period of three years from 10.11.1967. After the death of the respondent's mother deceased respondent Abdul Jawad became the owner of the property. Respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased landlord Abdul Jawad. The tenancy is according to English calendar month. The rent has to be paid on the 10th of every calendar month with an option for renewal of lease after three years. The petitioner has not exercised that option. After death of petitioner's father, petitioner was recognised as the tenant under the meaning of Section 2 (8) of the Rent Control Act. The lease is for commercial purpose. Originally, rent was Rs.150/- per month and at the time of filing the petition, the monthly rent was Rs.450/- per month excluding electricity charges. As per clause 5 and 8 of the lease agreement, Mr.M.A.Jacob was allowed to put up any construction or alter the premises at his own cost with a condition to leave the construction, as such, without any compensation.

3.The deceased respondent Abdul Jawad filed R.C.O.P.No.358 of 2002 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act for fixing fair rent. Petitioner took a plea that he is the owner of the superstructure and therefore, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction. That petition was allowed, fixing the fair rent at Rs.8,842/- per month. Both the respondents and petitioner filed R.C.A.No.5 of 2004 and R.C.A.No.115 of 2004 respectively. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the respondent's appeal and allowed the petitioner's appeal stating that the respondents cannot claim fair rent for superstructure. Respondent filed C.R.P.No.3814 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.1720 of 2009. Both the petitions were allowed and it was held that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent and Rent Control Act applies to the petition mentioned property. The order of Hon'ble High Court passed in these C.R.P's become final. By claiming title to superstructure, petitioner denied the title of the respondent and therefore R.C.O.P.No.1503 of 2011 was filed for evicting the petitioner on the ground of denial of title.

4.Petitioner filed counter alleging that the deceased respondent Abdul Jawad already filed R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2004 on the same ground and that was closed on 07.08.2010 for non-prosecution. Therefore, this petition is barred by Resjudicata. Petitioner was permitted to demolish the old structure and reconstruct the building as per the lease deed dated 10.11.1967. Accordingly, petitioner obtained necessary approval from Corporation of Madras and constructed two storey building. Petitioner is the owner of the superstructure and he is tenant only in respect of land alone. Petitioner never denied that the respondent is the owner of the land. The question is whether there exist a landlord-tenant relationship for the superstructure put up by the petitioner. When the petitioner admitted the respondents title in respect of the land and the petitioners ownership of superstructure, there is no question of denying title of the respondents.

5.During the enquiry before the learned Rent Controller, PW1 was examined and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the respondents. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller, on considering the oral and d