ORDER

The tenants are the civil revision petitioners. R.C.O.P.No.1300 of 1998 on the file of XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai, was filed by the landlord as against the tenants on the grounds of wilful default and acts of waste. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlord and tenants.

2. The landlord is the owner of the property, situated at New Door No.8, Old Door No.6, State Bank 1st lane, formerly Byran Jung Bahadur 1st lane, Mount Road, Chennai-2. The tenants are put in possession of the property on lease at the rate of Rs.600/-per month. They had given three months rent as advance and Rs.10,200/- as security deposit at the time of inception of the tenancy in the year 1990. The landlord alleged that the tenants are chronic and wilful defaulters and had not paid rents from 01.07.1996 to 30.04.1998, in all

22 months on the date of filing of Rent Control Original Petition.

3. The landlord further alleged that without their knowledge and consent, the tenants had raised brick walls partitioning the petition premises constituting acts of waste. They stated that due to the constructions made by the tenants, the value and utility of the petition premises had been impaired materially.

4. This petition was taken on file as RCOP No.1300 of 1998.

5. The tenants filed a counter stating that originally the father of the landlords was the owner of the premises. They stated that his brother had filed a suit in O.S.No.1045 of 1989 and obtained a preliminary decree. They further alleged that the respondents' mother had taken the premises on rent and it was in a dilapidated condition in the year 1990. After her, the tenants 1 and 2 had entered into an oral agreement to continue the tenancy. According to them, they had made improvements to the structure and the entire building would have fallen down if not for the dividing wall. They would state that in the registered partition deed entered into between the father of the landlords and his brother, payment of Rs.50,000/- by the tenants had been acknowledged which was towards an agreement of sale that had been entered into between the parties. They would allege that since agreement of sale was entered between the tenants and the landlords' father, the nature of relationship had changed and they are not liable to pay any rents. They would also state that they filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in C.S.No.675 of 1998 and that a sum of Rs.2,48,000/- alone remains to be paid. They would allege that as they are not liable to pay rents, the question of wilful default does not arise.

6. The learned Rent Controller found that the alleged sale agreement that has been projected by the tenants is not true and genuine document and found on an admitted case, there is wilful default and therefore, ordered eviction. An appeal was preferred by the tenants in R.C.A.No.113 of 2005. The Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal on 14.08.2009. This Civil Revision Petition is before me against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

7. I heard Mr.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.B.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Mr.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit as follows:

i) The sale agreement having been entered into between the tenants and the landlord, it put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant and therefore, they are not liable to pay rents at all.

ii) Since they are in possession of the property as agreement holders, the question of payment of rents does not arise.

9. Mr.B.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondents would submit as follows:

i) that the agreement is a forgery and the landlords' father never entered into such an agreement.

ii) this Court must not re-appreciate the evidence sitting under Section

25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act when concurrently the Courts belo