ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Palani, dated 15.03.2022 refusing to admit two rental agreements dated 10.02.1995 and 17.06.2005.

2. The respondents, who are the landlords of the petition mentioned building, have filed a Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2019 against the revision petitioners for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, denial of title and demolition and reconstruction.

3. Admittedly, the petition mentioned building was previously owned by one Somasundaram, who is none other than the brother of the first respondent and that the revision petitioners have become tenants under the said Somasundaram.

4. The case of the respondents is that the said Somasundaram has sold the petition mentioned building on 03.08.2005 in favour of the respondents and consequently tenancy was attorned in favour of the respondents, that the revision petitioners have failed to pay any rent from August 2005, that they have also denied the title of the respondents, which is mala fide, that the respondents have also planned to demolish the petition mentioned building and other buildings and to construct a marriage hall and that since the revision petitioners have not complied with the demand of the respondents to vacate the building, the respondents were constrained to file the above eviction petition.

5. The defence of the revision petitioners is that the alleged sale deed dated 03.08.2005 in favour of the respondents is a sham and nominal document, that the previous owner Somasundaram had obtained debts from various persons, that a creditor insolvency petition in I.P.No.11 of 2007 has already been filed to declare that the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 is invalid and the same is pending, that the legal representatives of the deceased Somasundaram have filed a suit against the respondents challenging the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 and the same is pending in O.S.No.219 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani, that several proceedings are pending with respect to the petition mentioned buildings, that the revision petitioners have become tenants under the said Somasundaram by executing a rental agreement dated 10.02.1995 by paying advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only), that subsequently they have entered into another rental agreement on 17.06.2005 recording that a sum of Rs.9,55,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) was paid as advance, that since the respondents are not the owners of the petition mentioned building, they have no locus standi to file the above eviction petition and that therefore, the original petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. It is evident from the records that trial has already been commenced and after the closure of the respondents' side evidence, the revision petitioners have commenced their side evidence by examining the first revision petitioner Ramasamy as R.W.1 and after recording of his chief examination affidavit and 23 documents produced by them as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.23, they have filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2021 under Order 8 Rule 1A C.P.C. to receive two rental agreements and that since the respondents have not filed any counter to the said petition in I.A.No.4 of 2021, the learned Rent Controller has allowed the petition by observing “subject to marking and relevancy of documents, this petition is allowed”.

When the revision petitioners have attempted to mark the said two documents, the same was objected to by the respondents on the ground that the two documents are unstamped and unregistered. The learned Rent Controller, in the deposition itself, by recording the objections raised by the respondents' side, has sustained the same and thereby refused to mark the said documents. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision came to be filed.

7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the learned Rent Controller, after recording the objec