Judgment :- 1. Both these revision petitions are filed by the tenants. 2. R.C.O.P. 521 of 1988 was filed by landlord claiming eviction on the ground that tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rent, from the month of August 1987 to December 1987, both months inclusive. It is also alleged in the application that tenants are also liable to be evicted on the ground that they have committed act of waste which has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. It is also alleged in the petition that the tenants have denied the title of landlord over the superstructure and the same is without bona fides. 3. R.C.O.P. 1625 of 1990 was filed by the very same landlord against the very same tenants alleging that tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rent for two months, i.e., for December 1989 and January 1990. 4. In the counter statement filed by revision petitioners, they contended that landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of two tenancies in one application. According to them, entire land belonged to Parthasarathy Koil Devasthanam and landlord has put up construction in Door No. 2, Natesan Road consisting of three rooms and one Thazvaram and in respect of the same, they are tenants. But, in regard to Door No. 24, Dr. Besant Road, Triplicane, it is vacant land and landlord is a lessee and he is a sub-lessee. In that vacant land, he has put up superstructure and Rent Control application is not maintainable in so far as vacant land is concerned. According to tenant, in respect of vacant land and building, there are two separate tenancies whereby tenants have agreed to pay Rs. 150/- each. Description of property as stated in scheduled property is not correct and consequently they prayed for dismissal of application. 5. Regarding claim of eviction on the ground of wilful default, the same is denied. They alleged that they have paid rent regularly and periodically and accumulated rent for two months or three months was also being received by landlord in view of close relationship. According to them, even though rent for August and September 1989 was already paid, no receipt was issued. Without prejudice to their contention, rent for those months was also deposited on the first hearing date. According to them, even though rent for August and September 1989 was already paid, no receipt was issued. Without prejudice to their contention, rent for those months was also deposited on the first hearing date. They also said that a civil suit is already filed in O.S. 2651 of 1986 for injunction from putting up any construction and also for mandatory injunction for removal of structures and consequently they were put to heavy loss in the business. They further alleged that they have not committed any act of waste, imparing value and utility of the building. Tenants further contended that they are not using 20 HP Motors and they are using on 15 HP Motor and the said business is going on for 18 years. Only due to enmity and misunderstanding between parties, the eviction petition was filed. It is also said that the machineries have been erected with strong foundation and no vibration is caused to nearby buildings. They contended that they are not liable to be evicted on that ground. 6. In R.C.O.P. 1625 of 1990 also, similar contentions were taken. In regard to payment of rent for December 1989 and January 1990, revision petitioners contended that rent was paid during pendency of proceedings in R.C.O.P. 521 of 1988 to landlords counsel, as landlord refused to receive rent when tendered. They further said that landlord used to collect rent once in three months or two months and issued receipts belatedly. According to tenants, no rent is due to landlord. They prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition. 7. On the above pleadings, parties went on trial. On the side of landlord, PW1 landlady was examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of tenants, RW1 was examined and Exs.Rl to R14 were marked. 8. After evaluating entire evidence, Rent Controller held that there is only one tenancy in respect of entire premises. As per Ex.P2, trial Court held that entire premises was given on rent to revision petitioners and there is no two tenanciies for building and vacant site as alleged by tenants. Reliance placed by revision petitioners on Exs. RlO to R14 was not accepted by Rent Controller on the ground that those documents relate to the period long prior to Ex.P2. Reliance placed by revision petitioners on Exs. RlO to R14 was not accepted by Rent Controller on the ground that those documents relate to the period long prior to Ex.P2. Reliance was also placed by Rent Controller on Exs.P3 and P4, which are counterfoils of receipts wherein description of property is given as stated in eviction petition. Rent Controller further held that Exs.R10 to F. 14 were not produced before Civil Court where O.S. 2651 of 1986 was pending. Trial Court held that on the basis of decision in O.S. 2651 of 1986, entire property is lying as one block and there cannot be two tenancies as alleged by revision petitioners. 9. Rent Controller held that tenants were not paying rent regularly. In R.C.O.P. 521 of 1988, it was held that subsequent conduct of tenant shows that he was not in the habit of paying rent regularly and was intentionally delaying payment. Rent Controller held that tenant is making use of 15 HP Motor and the same has caused damage to the property as ensured by Commissioners report filed in O.S. 2651 of 1986. It was further held by Rent Controller that he has not put up any superstructure and denied title of the landlord is without any bona fides. 10. In R.C.O.P. 1625 of 1990, Rent Controller held that tenant has not paid rent for December, 1989 and January 1990 and the default is wilful. Eviction was ordered in both the petitions. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, tenants preferred two appeals before Appellate Authority in R.C.A. 695 and 696 of 1993 on the file of Appellate Authority/7th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. Both the Appeals were dismissed confirming the findings of Rent Controller. It is against the said concurrent findings of authorities below, these revision petitions were preferred by the tenants. 12. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 13. The contention of tenants that there are two tenancies, one regarding vacant land and another regarding building cannot be accepted and documentary evidence produced before Rent Controller conclusively proves that the entire land and building was let out to revision petitioners as one block under Ex.P2. Execution of Ex.P2 is admitted by revision petitioners. It is also admitted that tenants have received original receipts covered under Exs.P3 and P4. Execution of Ex.P2 is admitted by revision petitioners. It is also admitted that tenants have received original receipts covered under Exs.P3 and P4. In Ex.P3 and P4 also, description of property is given, which tallies with the description of property in eviction petition. It is also admitted by revision petitioners in evidence that there is no record to show that there is separate tenancy in respect of vacant land. Rent is also, paid in lump sum at the rate of Rs. 300/- though tenant says that Rs. 150/- is for vacant land and another Rs. 150/- is towards the building. 14. I have already referred to O.S. 2651 of 1986 filed by landlord. That suit is one for prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction restraining defendants/tenants from committing any acts of waste and also from removing certain structures. Ex.P13 is the judgment in O.S. 2651 of 1986. Though suit was dismissed, there is a finding that entire property has been leased out to revision petitioners under Ex.P2. Cumulative effect of all these evidence was taken note of by Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority in coming to the conclusion that two premises in scheduled property and vacant land also form part of same tenancy. In Ex.P2, description of property is same as scheduled in the eviction petition. Since petitioners admit execution of Ex.P2 and also paid rent pursuant to execution of Ex.P2, they are estopped from contending that there are two tenancies. The finding of authorities below are, therefore, confirmeed. 15. As contended before authorities below, learned counsel for petitioners relied on Exs.R10 to R14 to contend that there is separate lease arrangements in respect of vacant land. Exs. RlO to R14 are all of the year 1960 long before Ex.P2 was executed. As rightly found by Rent Controller, Exs. RlO to R14 were not produced before Civil Court and even the genuineness of the same is doubted by authorities below. I do not find any ground to interfere in that finding of authorities below. 16. The main ground of eviction in both the petitions is that tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rent. In R.C.O.P. 1625 of 1990, default is claimed for the period of two months i.e., December, 1989 and January 1990. Long before institution of that proceeding, landlord initiated R.C.O.P. 521 of 1988 wherein also default in payment of rent was one of the ground. In R.C.O.P. 1625 of 1990, default is claimed for the period of two months i.e., December, 1989 and January 1990. Long before institution of that proceeding, landlord initiated R.C.O.P. 521 of 1988 wherein also default in payment of rent was one of the ground. It could be seen from the evidence that rent was never paid in due time. According to revision petitioners, since parties are close relations, landlord used to receive rent whenever it is tendered whether it be in 2 months, or 3 months or 4 months. I do not find any merit in the said submission. 17. In spite of close relationship, it is admitted on both sides that suit was pending in O.S. 2651 of 1986 filed by landlord. There were also other litigations before this Court regarding licence issued by the Corporation. When the relationship has become very much strained, petitioners cannot contend that because of close blood relationship, landlord used to receive rent whenever it is tendered. When Court cannot accept the explanation offered by tenants, we have to take the admission of tenant that he will pay rent only in lump sum and not on the due dates, and according to their convenience. Rent Controllers as well as Appellate Authority held that before initiation of proceedings in R.C.O.P. 521 of 1988, rent was never paid regularly and details of payments are given in the judgment. 18. Rent Controller held that the conduct of tenant especially after initiation of proceedings in R.C.O.P. 521 of 1998 shows that he was not interested in paying rent in due time. That finding is also based on evidence and I do not find any ground to interfere in that finding. In R.C.O.P. 1625 of 1990, though tenant contended that they paid rent, that has also been found against by Appellate Authority. Revision Petitioner contended that they used to pay rent to counsel for landlord whenever case is posted for hearing. Hearing of a case and payment of rent have no connection and nothing prevented tenants either depositing or paying rent to landlord on the due date. From the counter statement, it is clear that it was not on the due date rent was paid. That is not contract between parties. Authorities below have found, on appreciation of evidence that rent for December 1989 and January 1990 was not paid and tenants have taken false contention. From the counter statement, it is clear that it was not on the due date rent was paid. That is not contract between parties. Authorities below have found, on appreciation of evidence that rent for December 1989 and January 1990 was not paid and tenants have taken false contention. The decision of Authorities below I that tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rent is only to be confirmed. It further held that once litigations are pending and that too on the allegation of default in payment of rent, a duty is cast on revision petitioner to pay rent on the due date. When tenant has not paid rent on the due date and at the same time he has taken false contention, he can only be termed as ‘wilful defaulter’. Tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground that he is wilful defaulter. 19. Regarding the finding of Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority that the tenant has committed active waste in the property, I find the same requires interference. Both Rent Controller and Appellate Authority relied on Ex.P14 Commissioners report and also Ex.P13 Judgment in O.S. 2651 of 1986 between the same parties. On going by Ex.P14, I do not find even one sentence regarding waste alleged to have been committed by tenant. Mandatory injunction was sought against tenant on the ground that the installation of machinery has caused damage. Finding of Civil Court is that mere installation of 15 HP Motor has not caused any damage and landlord has failed to prove the same. In the eviction petition, allegation of landlord is that tenant has installed 20 HP motor and the same has caused cracks on the wall and due to vibration even the neighbouring buildings belonging to landlord is damaged. It was very same contention that was taken before Civil Court also. But Civil Courts finding is against landlord. Both Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority on the basis of Ex.P14 found that tenant has committed act of waste. If only they have, atleast, gone through the report, this finding would not have been entered. There is a finding in Ex.P. 13 judgment that revision petitioner is making use of 15 HP Motor at least for 40 years prior to institution of this proceeding. Landlord had no complaint at any time that working of motor has caused damages to the building. There is a finding in Ex.P. 13 judgment that revision petitioner is making use of 15 HP Motor at least for 40 years prior to institution of this proceeding. Landlord had no complaint at any time that working of motor has caused damages to the building. If no reliance could be placed on Ex.P14, we have the only evidence of PW1 to prove the same. Evidence of PW1 was not accepted by Civil Court. Finding of Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority that tenant has committed act of waste in the property is based on no evidence and consequently I hold that tenant is not liable to be evicted on that ground. 20. Regarding the claim of eviction that tenants have denied the title of landlord. I find that the decision is not correct. Contention of tenant is in respect of vacant land that he is sub-lessee, and in respect of superstructure, he is lessee. Landlord and tenant relationship is admitted. Only question that was agitated was whether in respect of vacant land, there is separate arrangement. Tenant is not disputing right of landlord. In regard to building scheduled in the eviction petition also, tenant is not disputing the right of landlord. According to him, he has put up structures in the vacant land and in regard to the same, there is no landlord-tenant relationship. In this connection, it is only proper to consider the eviction petition itself. In para 6 of the eviction petition, it is stated thus, “ Even assuming without admitting that the respondent/tenant has put up any structure in the appurtenant land and has also got the assessment made in his name, it will not change the complexion and character of the lease At worst, the respondent may claim that he can remove the superstructure, if any, put up by him and nothing else. In fact, in the agreement dated 1.4.71, the respondent/tenant has categorically given an undertaking that he will not put up any permanent structure and that he will not cause any damage to the existing structures “ In para 9 of the eviction petition, landlord has only alleged thus, “. . The respondent/tenant has come forward with a false story as if there are two tenancies, one of the 3 rooms, Thazvaram and another of the vacant land. This is absolutely false. There is nothing but wilful denial of the petitioners title. . The respondent/tenant has come forward with a false story as if there are two tenancies, one of the 3 rooms, Thazvaram and another of the vacant land. This is absolutely false. There is nothing but wilful denial of the petitioners title. This is not at all bona fide.” Even taking the allegations in the eviction petition as true, it cannot be said that tenants have denied the title of landlord. From the Judgment in O.S. 2651 of 1986, it is seen that tenant has put up temporary structure in the vacant land for the purpose of his business. Though landlord wanted to remove the same by mandatory injunction, Civil Court dismissed the suit. Merely because tenant put forward a contention that there are two tenancies, but at the same time admitting the right of landlord, it cannot be said that he denied the title. Eviction ordered by authorities below on that ground is set aside. 21. In the result, I confirm the order of eviction. Eviction ordered on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent is confirmed. Eviction ordered by authorities below on the ground that tenants have committed active waste in the property and denial of title of landlord are set aside. 22. The revision petitions are dismissed as above. There will be no order as to costs.