Judgment :- The revision petitioners are the respondents 2 and 3 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. Kaliyaperumal, the second respondent herein filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction of one Kalyanam, the tenant from the petition residential premises under section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as "the Act") on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the months of July, 1990 to August, 1994. 3. It is stated in the Rent Control Original Petition that the first respondent's grandfather Manickam Pillai became the tenant under one Krishnasamy Padayachi, the father of the second respondent Kaliyaperumal and on the death of Manickam Pillai, the deceased Kalyanam, first respondent in the Rent Control Original Petition as the legal representative of Manickam Pillai attorned the tenancy and he paid the rent upto June 1990 and thereafter, he committed wilful default in payment of rent till August, 1994. 4. The Rent Control Original Petition was opposed in the counter admitting the default in payment of rent from July, 1990 and stating that in July, 1990 another person claimed rent as the power of attorney agent of Lakshmi Singaram, the owner of the petition premises and on contact the said Kaliyaperumal who filed the Rent Control Original Petition, informed that the said Lakshmi Singaram is the owner and asked to pay the rent only to her. In the mean time, Kalyanam, the first respondent in the Rent Control Original Petition has filed suit O.S.No.270 of 1990 in the District Munsif Court Sirkali for permanent injunction that his possession should not be disturbed which was contested by the said Kaliaperumal alone and which ultimately culminated into a decree. 5. It appears that during the pendency of the Rent Control Original Petition, the tenant Kalyanam died and his daughter Jayanthi, the first respondent herein was added as legal representative of the deceased Kalyanam. She filed additional counter stating that there have been tenancy relationship only between the second respondent Kaliaperumal, who filed the Rent Control Original Petition, and the first respondent herein and that there have been no landlords and tenant relationship between the revision petitioners and the first respondent Jayanthi. 6. She filed additional counter stating that there have been tenancy relationship only between the second respondent Kaliaperumal, who filed the Rent Control Original Petition, and the first respondent herein and that there have been no landlords and tenant relationship between the revision petitioners and the first respondent Jayanthi. 6. It also appears that during the pendency of the Rent Control Original Petition, the revision petitioners, who claimed the ownership of the petition premises, represented by their power of attorney by name Kanagasabai were added as petitioners 2 and 3 in the Rent Control Original Petition. 7. Before the Rent Control Original Petition Kaliaperumal, was examined as P.W.1 and the power of attorney of the revision petitioners by name Kanagsami was examined as P.W.2 and also one Venugopal as P.W.3 and Exs.P-1 to P-19 were marked. On the side of the tenant, the husband of the first respondent herein was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-5. The learned Rent Controller considering the facts that the default from July, 1990 till the date of filing the counter on 4.8.1995 has been admitted by the tenant Kalyanam and that the arrears of rent for 61 months from July, 1990 to July, 1995 was paid only on 1.9.1995 and thereafter, the rent for 27 months, viz., Rs.1,080/- was paid on 12.3.1999 and such default in payment of rent is to be construed as wilful, ordered eviction in favour of the revision petitioners herein, who were brought on record since P.W.1 claimed ownership when he gave evidence. The eviction order was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who in confirming the wilful default in payment of rent from July, 1990 to August, 1994 and even for subsequent period as stated by the Rent Controller, however, dismissed the Rent Control Original Petition by allowing the Rent Control Appeal, in that, the ownership has not been proved by the revision petitioners, who are the petitioners 2 and 3 in the Rent Control Original Petition. Such dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition by allowing the Rent Control Appeal No.22 of 2001 is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 8. Such dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition by allowing the Rent Control Appeal No.22 of 2001 is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that though P.W.1 Kaliaperumal filed the Rent Control Original Petition as the landlord being the agent of owners, inasmuch as he claimed ownership to the petition premises when he gave evidence and on coming to know the Revision Petitioners themselves added as petitioners 2 and 3 in the Rent Control Original Petition and P.W.1, who filed the Rent Control Original Petition has also made endorsement that he has no objection for impleading the revision petitioners herein being the owners of the petition premises. In that view, according to the learned counsel since the revision petitioners are the owners of the petition premises, the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in dismissing the Rent Control Original Petition is not proper, despite the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent from July, 1990 to August, 1994 wilfully has been confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also relied on the decision Kasturchand – vs. - Raman Rajan and another reported in 1994 T.L.N.J. (Supreme Court) 42, in which the Apex Court has ruled after extracting the Section 10(8) and 2(6) of the Act:- "The Sub-section thus shows that any person acting on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others is a landlord. an agent is defined as a landlord; so is a trustee; so is a guardian. The definition being wide and also inclusive does not exclude a person who at all material times acted as a landlord to the knowledge of all the parties concerned and whose authority to deal with the premises has never been disputed. A person who so acts falls within the definition not as a mere agent, as defined under Section 182 of the Contract Act. He may also be an agent, but not a mere agent. He is much more than that, particularly in the light of the facts of the case. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent was for all purposes treated by all parties interested in the transaction as a landlord. He may also be an agent, but not a mere agent. He is much more than that, particularly in the light of the facts of the case. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent was for all purposes treated by all parties interested in the transaction as a landlord. In respect of such a person, Section 10(8) which refers to a mere agent, is not attracted." 9. The learned counsel for the first respondent/tenant argued that inasmuch as the petition premises belongs to Kannammal, the cousin of the second respondent herein, who originally filed the Rent Control Original Petition in view of her purchase as per the sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 7.12.1931 and on her death, the property devolved upon to the revision petitioners who are her sons and her daughter Lakshmi Singaram who has not joined in filing the Rent Control Original Petition and so, the revision petitioners are not entitled to seek possession of the petition premises as observed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. As regards the wilful default in payment of rent from July, 1990 to August, 1994 as claimed by the revision petitioners, the learned counsel argued that since there was a bona fide dispute with regard to the ownership and inasmuch as Kanagasabai representing as power of agent of Lakshmi Singaram claimed rent, the rent was not paid and however since the entire arrears of rent have been paid during the pendency of the Rent Control Original Petition, the tenant has not committed default much-less wilful in payment of rent from July, 1990 to August, 1994. Further according to the learned counsel for the first respondent, there is no landlords and tenant relationship between the revision petitioners and the first respondent. 10. Admittedly, the first respondent's husband Kalyanam, against whom the Rent Control Original petition was filed for eviction and on his death during the pendency of the Rent Control Original Petition, the first respondent herein was added, is the tenant of the petition premises. The quantum of rent at Rs.40/- per month is also admitted. Further, the fact that the rent was not paid for the period from July, 1990 to August, 1994 was also admitted in the counter. The quantum of rent at Rs.40/- per month is also admitted. Further, the fact that the rent was not paid for the period from July, 1990 to August, 1994 was also admitted in the counter. Originally, the Rent Control Original Petition was filed by the original owner Kannammal's cousin Kaliaperumal, the second respondent herein as landlord and during the pendency of the Rent Control Original Petition, the revision petitioners herein were brought on record as petitioners 2 and 3 in the Rent Control Original Petition as owners on the death of their mother Kannammal and their sister Lakshmi Singaram. The tenant Kalyanam, the first respondent in the Rent Control Original Petition, filed the suit O.S.No.270 of 1990 against Kaliaperumal, Murugayyan and Kanagasabai for permanent injunction that his possession as tenant should not be disturbed unless he is evicted by due process of law. In the plaint, the copy of which is marked as Ex.P-1, it is stated that he has paid the rent only upto June, 1990. 11. The revision petitioners sent fax message under Ex.P-4 and also gave the power of attorney in favour of P.W.2 Kanagasabai under Exs.P-7 and P-8. In Exs.P-7 and P-8 it is clearly mentioned that on the death of their mother, Kannammal, the original owner, they became the owners. Though it appears Lakshmi Singaram also gave the power of attorney under Ex.P-6 in respect of the petition premises being one of the heirs of her mother Kannammal, it appears that she was sick for some time and died as seen from Ex.P-9. She had also written letter under Ex.P-14 that she is not interested in the property. Further, the petition I.A.No.53 of 1999 filed by her to implead herself in the Rent Control Original Petition through her power of attorney Murugesan, brother of P.W.2, was dismissed as not pressed. Though the said petition was dismissed as not pressed, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has carried over by the said affidavit filed in the said petition, wherein it is stated that she had become the legal representative on the death of her mother Kannammal. Though the said petition was dismissed as not pressed, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has carried over by the said affidavit filed in the said petition, wherein it is stated that she had become the legal representative on the death of her mother Kannammal. Even assuming that she is also one of the heirs to her mother Kannammal, inasmuch as her brothers, the revision petitioners herein being the co-owners have filed the Rent Control Original Petition, such petition filed is very much maintainable and they are entitled to get possession of the petition premises being the co-owners from the first respondent/tenant, in that it appears there have been no other legal representative for the original owner Kannammal excepting the revision petitioners and their sister Lakshmi Singaram. 12. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on this aspect that in view of the fact that Lakshmi Singaram also one of the co-owners and has not joined in filing the Rent Control Original Petition along with the revision petitioners and in that view, the revision petitioners are not entitled for eviction and to get possession of the petition premises, which is improper, is to be interfered with by this Court. 13. As regards the wilful default in payment of rent for the month of July, 1990 to August, 1994, admittedly, the tenant Kalyanam, against whom originally the Rent Control Original Petition was filed having not paid the rent from July, 1990 to August, 1994 and he paid the rent for 61 months towards the rent for the months from July, 1990 to July, 1995 only on 1.9.1995 and thereafter Rs.1,080/- was paid towards rent for 27 months on 12.3.1999. 14. Even after filing of the Rent Control Original Petition, the first respondent herein caused lawyer notice under Ex.R-2 to Kaliaperumal on 28.2.1997 stating that the rent sent under money order coupon Ex.R-1 for December 1996 and January, 1997 were refused and requesting to name the bank for deposit of rent. 14. Even after filing of the Rent Control Original Petition, the first respondent herein caused lawyer notice under Ex.R-2 to Kaliaperumal on 28.2.1997 stating that the rent sent under money order coupon Ex.R-1 for December 1996 and January, 1997 were refused and requesting to name the bank for deposit of rent. The second respondent herein replied under Ex.A-18 dated 7.3.1997 that the Rent Control Original Petition, subject matter of this Civil Revision Petition, was filed stating that the rent till November, 1996 was paid only in Court by her husband Kalyanam and further stating that the rent was not paid directly to the second respondent herein by her husband against whom originally the Rent Control Original Petition was filed. Therefore, it is clear as concurrently recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority that the tenant has committed default in non-payment of rent from July, 1990 to August, 1994 under pretext that there was dispute about the ownership, despite the fact the second respondent, who originally filed the Rent Control Original Petition, it appears, has made endorsement stating no objection in the petition filed to implead the revision petitioners being the owners as petitioners 2 and 3 in the Rent Control Original Petition. Further, no step was also taken by the first respondent herein for depositing the rent in Court under Section 9 of the Act. As such there have been supine indifference and callousness on the part of the tenant in not paying the rent to the revision petitioners, who were added as owners of the petition premises on the death of their mother Kannammal to whom originally the petition premises belonged in view of her purchase under Ex.P-2 and despite the fact the Rent Control Original Petition was filed by the second respondent Kaliaperumal to whom the rent was being paid. The tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of July, 1990 to August, 1994 and therefore, the first respondent herein is to be evicted from the petition premises directing to hand over possession to the revision petitioners herein, who became co-owners on the death of their mother Kannammal along with her sister Lakshmi Singaram. 15. The tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of July, 1990 to August, 1994 and therefore, the first respondent herein is to be evicted from the petition premises directing to hand over possession to the revision petitioners herein, who became co-owners on the death of their mother Kannammal along with her sister Lakshmi Singaram. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2002 made in R.C.A.No.22 of 2001 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and restoring the order of eviction dated 5.9.2001 made in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1995 by the learned Rent controller.