O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order order dated 10.08.2021 made in E.A.No.30 of 2018 in E.P.No.79 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

2.The brief facts, which are necessary to decide this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:-

2.1.The Petitioner is the landlord. He has filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 under Section 10(2)(i)(iii)(3)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Respondent/Dhanasekaran was the tenant. The property was purchased by the Revision Petitioner herein as per sale deed dated 22.01.1987 from one Pounammal. Subsequently, the said Dhanasekaran was inducted as tenant in the month of January, 1988. The Respondent as tenant paid Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the Revision Petitioner/landlord as advance. As per the terms of the lease, the tenant has to pay the electricity service connection charges. Stage by stage, the rent was increased and on 1997 the monthly rent was Rs.400/-. The Respondent had been paying the rent without any let or hindrance. The Respondent had been carrying out sale of vegetables in the leased out premises. The Respondent had not been continuously paying rent thereby he had committed wilfull default. Therefore, the landlord has filed R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 to vacate the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of wilfull default and owner's occupation. The tenant resisted the same. He filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition. After due enquiry, R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 was decreed in favour of the Revision Petitioner on 24.04.2017. In continuation of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002, the Revision Petitioner/landlord has filed E.P.No.79 of 2017 seeking delivery of possession of the property. At that stage E.A.No.30 of 2018 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002. That petition was opposed by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/landlord. In the execution petition stage, the legal heirs of the tenant Dhanasekaran had filed petition to include them as Respondents in E.P.No.79 of 2017 on the ground that the whereabouts of the original tenant Dhanasekaran is not known to the family members. Therefore, invoking the provision civil dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner seeks to bring on record the legal heirs of Dhanasekaran as Respondents in E.A.No.30 of 2018 in E.P.No.79 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002. Aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner had approached this Court to set aside the order of the learned Principal District Munsif in E.A.No.30 of 2018 in E.P.No.79 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam.

3.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted his arguments. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the Revision Petitioner is the landlord of the premises. He had leased out premises in the year 1988 for Rs.300/- per month for commercial purposes and the tenant had been paying the rent regularly. From the year 2000, the tenant had not been paying the rent regularly. Therefore, in the year 2000, the landlord had issued legal notice directing the tenant to vacate the premises on the ground of wilfull default. The tenant had received the notice, but he did not reply. Therefore, the landlord had filed R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 for eviction of the tenant for wilfull default. While so, the tenant had filed I.A.No.1 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002, seeking stay of the order for rent control proceedings. After due enquiry the I.A.No.1 of 2010 was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the order in I.A.No.1 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002, the tenant had filed Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.1271 of 2010 before this Court.

4.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this