The tenant's claims to dispute landlord ownership are precluded by prior admissions of purchase and failure to pay rent, thus justifying eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

COMMON ORDER

Civil Revision Petition No.387 of 2021 is filed seeking to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 27^th day of November, 2020 passed in RCA.No.797 of 2018 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order dated 4^th day of October 2018 passed in RCOP.No.1659 of 2014 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.388 of 2021 is filed seeking to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 27^th day of November, 2020 passed in RCA.No.796 of 2018 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the order dated 4^th day of October 2018 passed in RCOP.No.2313 of 2013 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:

3.1. The property measuring 1981 sq. ft. in Town Survey No.10/1 situate at No.5/2, Padmanabhan Pillai Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024 is a house and vacant site which belongs to Mr.P.Balasundaram. The original tenant M.Rathinavelu was the father of Revision Petitioner R.Varadaraj. He was inducted as tenant by the original landlord Mr.P.Balasundaram and he had been tenant for forty years. He had been regular in paying the rent. While so, the landlord P.Balasundaram died. M.Rathinvelu, the tenant, had been paying the rent to Ms.Kalyani, the daughter of P.Balasundaram, who was a spinster. M.Rathinavelu entered into a sale agreement with Ms.Kalyani for purchase of the property.

Ms.Kalyani, the daughter of the original landlord met with an accident and died on 28.10.2010. Some persons claiming to be the Class-II legal heirs of P.Balasundaram approached M.Rathinavelu, the father of the Revision Petitioner R.Varadaraj for deposit of rent. Also they informed that they are going to sell the property. For which the father of the Revision Petitioner Rathinavelu informed them that he had already given advance amount to Ms.Kalyani and if those persons claiming to be the Class-II legal heirs are ready to obtain the legal heirship certificate of P.Balasundaram, he is ready to purchase the so called property from them. To enforce the contract for sale of the property, M.Rathinavelu had filed a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of property in C.S.No.736 of 2011 before the original side of the High Court. Pending suit in C.S.No.736 of 2011, the father of the Revision petitioner M.Rathinavelu died on 27.04.2012. Therefore, the tenant Revision Petitioner Varadaraj filed a petition under Section 9 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1960 in R.C.O.P.No.2313 of 2013 against the persons who claimed to be Class-II legal heirs of P.Balasundaram and the person who claimed to have purchased the property from the Class-II legal heirs, Mr.Vaidyanathan, Partner of KK Builders, as Respondents 1 to 5 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent.

3.2. In the meanwhile, K.Vaidyanathan, Partner of K.K.Builders, claiming