COMMON ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition had been filed against the fair order and decree in RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017 respectively dated 27.02.2020 on the file of the Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore, in confirming the order and decree of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif in RCOP.Nos.33 & 28

of 2006 dated 07.10.2017.

2.The brief facts which are relevant to decide these cases are as follows:

2.1.The Revision Petitioners herein are landlords filed RCOP.No.33

of 2006 on the file of the learned Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and

Rent) Control Act, 1960.

2.2.The Revision Petitioners were the Petitioners in RCOP.No.33 of

2006. The Revision Petitioners purchased the property which was leased out to the Respondent. The property was purchased from Madrasa–I-

Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, represented by its President and Trustee. The said Trust is a private Trust and it was the property of the said Trust. The Respondent in RCOP, is a tenant in the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1800. The Respondent has been making payment of rent to the previous owner till February 2005. The first Petitioner purchased the property on 21.03.2005. Subsequent to the purchase, the Respondent did not make any payment towards the rent. The vendor has also informed the Respondent about the same and directed the tenant to pay the rent to the Petitioners. Subsequent to the purchase, the first Petitioner herein as the Petitioners in RCOP approached the Respondent/tenant and duly informed about his purchase. The Respondent has also agreed to pay the rent to the Petitioners during March 2005, but the Respondent had changed his mind and failed to pay the rent with an ulterior motive and he had been evading payment of rent under one pretext or other. When the first Petitioner pressed for payment and informed about the eviction proceedings, the tenant filed O.S.No.431 of 2005 for injunction by denying the title of the first Petitioner.

2.3.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board was also added as a party to the suit.

In the suit, the Wakf Board had filed a written statement, wherein, they have not claimed any right over the schedule of property. They have not denied the right of the first Petitioner's vendors/Trust to sell the schedule mentioned property.

2.4.The first Petitioner issued a legal notice demanding arrears of rent. The Respondent has not paid the rent since March 2005. The Respondent is liable to pay the arrears of rent for 11 months, amounting to Rs.19,800/- The vendors of the Petitioners had also directed the Respondent to pay the rent to the Petitioners. The non-payment of rent is wilful. Mere filing of the suit will not save the Respondent from his liability to pay the rent. The claim of deposit of rent into Court without notice or without an order of the Court will not affect the rights of the Petitioners. The Respondent has failed to pay the rent in spite of repeated demands, the default committed by the Respondent is nothing but wilful and wanton. The

Respondent has become liable to be evicted.

2.5.The suit in O.S.No.431 of 2005 has nothing to do with his liabiltiy to pay the rent. In these cases, there are no rival claim at all. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board had not denied the ownership of the Petitioners over the schedule property. Subsequent to this petition, the first Petitioner sold the property to the second Petitioner for valid consideration. Therefore, the second Petitioner has right to continue with the proceedings.

2.6.The Respondent as tenant in RCOP filed counter claiming that originally the tenant was inducted based on the tenancy agreement with the Madrasa-I_Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore from the year 1994. The Respondent received letter dated 30.04.2005 that the representative of the College had sold the property to the first Petitioner under Sale Deed dated 21.03.2005. The Respondent received lawyers