Judgment : The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the grounds of immediate demolition and reconstruction and wilful default in payment of rent under Secs.14(l)(b) and 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960asamended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The case of the landlord is as under: The premises at old No.319 and new door No.4, Murugappa Street, Triplicane, Madras-5 belongs to the petitioner in the eviction petition. The respondent in the eviction petition is the tenant in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.8. The petitioner has already filed a petition for eviction in the year 1968 under Sec.l4(l)(b)of the Act. Even from that time onwards the tenant was not paying the rent to the landlord. The tenant denied the title of the landlord. Counter was filed in R.C.O.P.No.3112 of 1969 and eviction was ordered in the said petition. The tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed. It is thereafter a revision was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed. While so, according to the landlord, the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from 7. 1969 to October, 1988. Therefore, according to the landlord the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Sec.10(2)(1) of the act. The landlord further stated that the petition premises is an old one and therefore, he required the same for immediate demolition and reconstruction. .3. The tenant filed a counter stating as under: The landlord has already filed a petition for eviction under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act and in the said eviction petition eviction was ordered. But the landlord did not execute the decree obtained by him for eviction. In the meanwhile 12 years elapsed from the date of passing the decree. Hence the decree is not executable. In such circumstances the tenant pointed out that a second petition underSec.14(1)(b)of the Act is not maintainable. The tenant also stated that it is not correct on the part of the landlord to say that the tenant was not paying the rent to the landlord. The landlord did not send any notice prior to the filing of the present petition. In such circumstances the tenant pointed out that a second petition underSec.14(1)(b)of the Act is not maintainable. The tenant also stated that it is not correct on the part of the landlord to say that the tenant was not paying the rent to the landlord. The landlord did not send any notice prior to the filing of the present petition. The landlord has not stated as to why he has not taken any steps for the past 20 years, either in the matter of collecting the rent or in vacating the tenant. The tenant is entitled to the protection under the City Tenants Protection Act, since the superstructure was put up by him. Ultimately the tenant submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioner in the eviction petition. As the time of hearing the eviction petition the petitioner in the eviction petition did not press the ground relating to Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act. Therefore the only ground that survives for consideration in the revision is eviction sought for under Sec.l0(2)(l) of the Act. One Govindarajan was examined himself as P.W.2 and his power of attorney agent was examined as P.W.1. The respondent examined himself as R.W.I. The petitioner filed four documents and the respondent filed 10 documents. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition. The Rent Controller further held that the tenant did not commit any wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord. Accordingly eviction peti-tion was dismissed. However, on appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the facts arising in this case, came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition and that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period as alleged by the landlord. Accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller and ordered eviction under Sec.l0(2)(1)of the Act. It is against that order tenant is in revision before this Court. .4. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted as under: The appellate authority erred in reversing the well considered decision of the Rent Controller. Accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller and ordered eviction under Sec.l0(2)(1)of the Act. It is against that order tenant is in revision before this Court. .4. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted as under: The appellate authority erred in reversing the well considered decision of the Rent Controller. The appellate authority was not correct in admitting the additional evidence produced before it without any proof. It is not correct to state that the petitioner herein committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period as alleged by the landlord. In the earlier proceedings the petitioner here in has categorically denied the title of the respondent herein and that the finding given therein was not disturbed for more than 16 years. After securing the order of eviction, it is not open to the respondent herein to file a petition for eviction under Scc.l0(2)(l) of the Act. The additional evidence produced before the appellate authority were already considered by the Rent Controller and he gave a categorical finding that the petitioner herein has perfected his title in view of the denial of title as early as in 1970 in the earlier proceedings especially when the petitioner has produced Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 which conclusively would go to show that the petitioner has been enjoying the property in his own right as the owner. The appellate authority was not correct in stating that since the respondent herein is residing in a foreign country he was not able to collect the rent periodically. On that score eviction cannot be ordered. The appellate authority failed to consider the decision rendered in the case of Untar Baksh v. Baldeo Singh, 19321.C. 35, wherein it was categorically held that when the rent was not paid at all by the tenant for a period of more than 20 years and no serious attempt was ever made to recover the rent, more so when the petitioner having denied on oath that he never intended to pay the rent or regarded the respondent as landlord, it should be presumed that it was sufficient to establish adverse possession and that the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases. The appellate authority failed to consider the previous proceedings which was filed for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition. The appellate authority failed to consider the previous proceedings which was filed for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition. Nevertheless no steps have been taken to recover possession and that itself shows that the landlord never took any steps to establish his right and when once it was found that no rent was paid from 1969, the appellate authority ought to have found the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased and that the eviction proceedings ought to have been dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted as under: The respondent herein originally filed the petition for eviction of the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Scc.l4(l)(b) of the Act. Eviction was ordered. The appeal and the revision filed by the tenant were dismissed. In the earlier proceedings, the respondent contended that he is the owner of the superstructure and denied the title of the landlord. After taking into consideration of contentions put forward by the tenant, both the courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant and he should be liable to be evicted under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act. The fact that the eviction order was not put into execution for a period of more than 16 years would not by itself go to show that the petitioner herein has become the owner of the petition premises. The petitioner herein say that the relationship of landlord and the tenant ceased. Admittedly the tenant has not paid the rent for the petition period. No explanation was offered as to" why the rent was not paid. The respondent herein is residing abroad. Therefore he was unable to collect the rent periodically from the tenant. The fact that the rent was not collected for a long time would not prove that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner herein. It is not correct to state that the petitioner herein established his title over the petition premises by adverse possession. This issue cannot be decided by the rent control court. Further since the petitioner denied the title of the respondent herein over the petition premises, he is liable to be evicted on that ground also. It is not correct to state that the petitioner herein established his title over the petition premises by adverse possession. This issue cannot be decided by the rent control court. Further since the petitioner denied the title of the respondent herein over the petition premises, he is liable to be evicted on that ground also. Since the order passed by the Rent Controller is not in accordance with the law, the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller. Under such circumstances, it was pleaded that no interference is called for with the order passed by the appellate authority. 6. I have heard the rival submissions. .7. The fact remains that the petition for eviction was filed on two grounds viz. under Secs.l0(2)(l) and 14(l)(b) of the Act. At the time of hearing, the ground for eviction under Sec. 14(l)(b) of the Act was not pressed and the only ground that survived for consideration was eviction sought for on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Sec.10(2)(]) of the Act. According to the petitioner in the eviction petition the respondent failed and neglected to pay the rent from 7. 1969 to October,1988. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Act. It remains to be seen that earlier the petitioner in the eviction petition filed R.C.O.P.No.3112 of 1969 against the respondent for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. That petition was allowed and eviction was ordered. The respondent filed R.C.A.No.213of 1972and that was also dismissed. The revision filed by the respondent was also dismissed. However, the petitioner did not execute the order of eviction obtained by him under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act. Since eviction was ordered in an earlier eviction petition under Scc.l4(l)(b) of the Act, the respondent herein could not press the eviction petition filed under Sec.l4(l)(b)oftheAct. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. According to the petitioner herein when an order of eviction was passed in an earlier proceeding in R.C.O.P.No.3112 of 1969 and after reasonable time for eviction has been elapsed, thereafter the relationship of landlord and tenant would not exist between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition and the tenant would be deemed to be a trespasser. According to the petitioner herein when an order of eviction was passed in an earlier proceeding in R.C.O.P.No.3112 of 1969 and after reasonable time for eviction has been elapsed, thereafter the relationship of landlord and tenant would not exist between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition and the tenant would be deemed to be a trespasser. This ground raised by the petitioner herein contains sufficient force because once an order of eviction was passed and the timegranted for evicting the tenant from the petition premises is also exhausted, thereafter the respondent in the eviction petition cannot be deemed to be a tenant under the Act, but he would be considered only as a trespasser. When there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to an eviction petition the eviction petition has got to be dismissed for want of relationship of landlord and tenant. After the eviction order was passed in the earlier proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.3112 of 1969 till the date of filing the present eviction petition, there was no lease agreement between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition so as to enable the petitioner in the eviction petition so as to unable the petitioner in the eviction petition to say that there is relationship of the landlord and tenant between them. The respondent in the eviction petition was all along denied the title of the petitioner and claiming title in himself. No doubt, in the earlier proceedings eviction was ordered on the basis that the relationship of landlord and the tenant existed between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition. The point is whether that order would operate res judicata against the petitioner herein. The answer is that when once an order of eviction is passed against a tenant and that order of eviction was not executed before twelve years period, the relationship of landlord and the tenant would be ceased and the order would become nullity. Now therefore what remains to be considered in the present eviction petition is whether the landlord can file the present petition for eviction under Sec.l0(2)(l) of the Act. Now therefore what remains to be considered in the present eviction petition is whether the landlord can file the present petition for eviction under Sec.l0(2)(l) of the Act. As already seen after the order of eviction was passed and after the time granted in the order of eviction for evicting the tenant also get exhausted, the respondent in the eviction petition would be deemed to be a trespasser and the amount payable by him cannot be called as rent, but it would be damages for use and occupation. When the respondent in the eviction petition is a trespasser, then the petition for eviction cannot be filed under the Rent Control Act. 8. It is significant to note that where a Rent Controller passed an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession on or before a certain date, it was held that till that date the tenant was entitled to be in lawful possession of the premises. See: Rangasamy Naidu v. Bangaru Chetty, (1948)2 M.L.J. 82 . If the appellate authority grants further time for delivery of possession till the expiry of time, the tenant is not deemed to be a trespasser. Similarly when the matter is taken in revision or writ under Art.226 of the Constitution to the High Court, the tenant is not deemed to be a trespasser Manivenkatappa v. Krishna Rao, (1956)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 7. Therefore, in the present case also the respondent herein cannot file the petition under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Act against the petitioner herein since the petitioner herein is now deemed to be a trespasser. If that is so, the remedy lies elsewhere. .9. In the petition for eviction, the respondent herein contended that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from 7. 1969 till October, 1988. It means for a period of nearly 20 years. The landlord has not chosen to take any steps for collecting the rent from the tenant. According to the landlord he is abroad and therefore, he is unable to collect the rent periodically. The fact remains that the present petition was filed by the power of attorney agent of the landlord. It is not known as to what prevented the landlord from appointing the power of attorney agent to collect the rent from the tenant especially when an order of eviction is passed in favour of him in the earlier proceedings. The fact remains that the present petition was filed by the power of attorney agent of the landlord. It is not known as to what prevented the landlord from appointing the power of attorney agent to collect the rent from the tenant especially when an order of eviction is passed in favour of him in the earlier proceedings. There is no evidence on record to show that the respondent herein ever demanded the rent from the petitioner herein after the order of eviction was passed in the earlier proceedings. It is true that simply because the landlord has not demanded the rent for a long period, that would not disentitle him from collecting the rent from the tenant, of course, subject to law of limitation. 10. In the present case, we are concerned whether the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord under Sec.10(2)(1)of the act. The facts on record would go to show that the respondent failed to establish that the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in payment of rent under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Act. It remains to be seen that every default would not amount to wilful default unless the landlord established that there is an element of wilfulness in non-payment of rent in time. The Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the facts arising in this case in proper prospective. The legal principles followed by it are not applicable to the facts of this case. The appellate authority misdirected himself in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in payment of rent under Scc.l0(2)(l) of the Act. For all these reasons the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is not sustainable and hence the same is set aside. Accordingly petition filed under Sec.l0(2)(l) of the Act stands dismissed. 11. In the result the revision stands allowed. No costs.