Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petitions filed under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 11.07.2001 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.3 of 2001 and the order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the District Munsif, Aruppukkottai in E.P.No.39 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1994, as stated therein.) C.R.P.No.1792/02:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-court), Aruppukkottai dated 11.07.2001 in R.C.A.No.3 of 2001, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 27.02.1996 of the Rent Controller, Aruppukkottai in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1994, ordering Eviction. The Tenant is the Revision Petitioner. 2. C.R.P.No.755 of 2005:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order-dated 31.03.2005 passed by the District Munsif, Aruppukkottai in E.P.No.39 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1994, dismissing the Execution Petition. The Landlord / Decree Holder is the Revision Petitioner. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred in their original rank in the Rent Control Petition. 4. The Petition mentioned property relates to Door No.13-5-24 comprised in three portions bearing Door Nos.22, 23 and 24 of South Durairajapuram Street, Aruppukkottai Town. Case of the Petitioner / Landlord is that the Demised Property belongs to the Petitioner / Landlord. Respondent / Tenant has become the Tenant from January 1991. Initially the rent was payable at Rs.100/-. It was increased to Rs.120/- per month from November 1993. The rent is payable on the Fifth of every succeeding English Calendar month. The Respondent / Tenant has not paid the rent from December 1993 in spite of repeated demands. The Respondent / Tenant has committed Wilful Default in not paying the rent. The Petitioner / Landlord was working in Railways and retired and residing at Madurai. The premises is required for own use and occupation of the Petitioner / Landlord, who desired to come and sit in his native place at Aruppukkottai. Hence, Eviction Petition has been filed under Sec.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 5. Denying the Landlord and Tenant relationship and contending that he is residing in the premises as a co-owner, the Respondent / Tenant has filed the Counter Statement contending that he is residing in the demised premises in his own capacity. There is no Lease Agreement nor there is Landlord/Tenant relationship between the parties. 5. Denying the Landlord and Tenant relationship and contending that he is residing in the premises as a co-owner, the Respondent / Tenant has filed the Counter Statement contending that he is residing in the demised premises in his own capacity. There is no Lease Agreement nor there is Landlord/Tenant relationship between the parties. Partition Suit in O.S.No.256 of 1994 filed by the Respondent / Tenant is pending. It is alleged that the Petition mentioned property and other properties are yet to be partitioned and the Petitioner / Landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of the co-owner. 6. To establish the Landlord and Tenant relationship, the Petitioner was examined as P.W.1. Neighbour one Subramanian was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked. Onbehalf of Respondents, Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. In consideration of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the Petitioner's Father - Serandhiya Mudaliar purchased the demised premises under Ex.R.1. The Rent Controller found that the relationship of Landlord and Tenant is proved interalia on the following findings / the Respondent / Tenant has not pleaded that the Petition mentioned property is purchased with the joint family income of the family; /Mere pendency of O.S.No.256 of 1994 would not in any way preclude the Court from trying the Rent Control Petition. 7. On the basis of evidence of neighbour P.W.2 – Subramanian, the Landlord – Tenant relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent is proved. The denial of Title of the Petitioner / Landlord by the Respondent is not bonafide. 8. Confirming the findings of the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the denial of Title by the Respondent / Tenant is not bonafide. The Appellate Authority also found that mere pendency of Partition Suit in O.S.No.256 of 1994 would not in any way establish the co-ownership right and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller has not been ousted from determining the Rent Control Petition. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of order of Eviction, the Respondent / Tenant has preferred C.R.P.No.1792 of 2002. 9. When the Revision Petition came up for hearing on 07.01.2003, only Notice of Motion was ordered. Interim Stay was granted till 20.01.2003. On 14.08.2003, the Petition filed for Interim Stay was dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner / Landlord pressed in the Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.39 of 2001. 9. When the Revision Petition came up for hearing on 07.01.2003, only Notice of Motion was ordered. Interim Stay was granted till 20.01.2003. On 14.08.2003, the Petition filed for Interim Stay was dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner / Landlord pressed in the Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.39 of 2001. However, pointing out the pendency of C.R.P.No.1792 of 2002, the District Munsif, Aruppukkottai declined to proceed with the Execution Proceedings and E.P.No.39 of 2001 was closed. Aggrieved against the said order, the Petitioner / Landlord has preferred C.R.P.No.755 of 2005. 10. Though the C.R.P.No.1792 of 2002 was only in the Notice of Motion stage and since the Revision is of the year 2002, with the consent of counsel for both parties, the main Revision Petitions themselves were taken up for hearing and disposal. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent / Tenant has submitted that when the Landlord / Tenant relationship has not been established, the Courts below erred in ordering Eviction. It is submitted that neither the Lease Agreement nor the receipt of rent either by receipt or by Bank Account has been produced by the Petitioner / Landlord. It is further contended that in view of denial of the Landlord / Tenant relationship, the Petitioner / Landlord ought to have proved the existence of the relationship of Landlord and Tenant and the Courts below erred in accepting the Landlord / Tenant relationship. It is further submitted that pendency of the Partition Suit in O.S.No.256 of 1994 filed by the Respondent has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below and that the Courts below erred in finding that the denial of Title is not bonafide. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord has submitted that in proper appreciation of the evidence, the Courts below have rightly accepted the Landlord / Tenant relationship. Submitting that the Suit in O.S.No.256 of 1994 was already dismissed, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord has submitted that the denial of Title is not bonafide. Submitting that the finding recorded by the courts below does not suffer from any erroneous approach, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord has contended that the order of Eviction is in proper appreciation of evidence. The Petitioner / Landlord has rightly filed E.P.No.39 of 2001 pointing out the dismissal of the Stay Petition in C.M.P.No.18701 of 2002. Submitting that the finding recorded by the courts below does not suffer from any erroneous approach, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord has contended that the order of Eviction is in proper appreciation of evidence. The Petitioner / Landlord has rightly filed E.P.No.39 of 2001 pointing out the dismissal of the Stay Petition in C.M.P.No.18701 of 2002. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord further contended that in view of the dismissal of the Stay Petition, the Rent Controller ought to have allowed the Execution Petition, which was filed for executing the order of Eviction. 13. In consideration of the submissions of both parties, order of the Courts below and materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in these Civil Revision Petitions. i. Whether the denial of Title by the Respondent / Tenant is bonafide? ii.Whether the Court below was not right in ordering Eviction on the grounds of Wilful Default and own use and occupation? 14. When the Title of the Petitioner / Landlord is denied, the Petitioner is to primafacie prove the ownership. The Petitioner is also to prove the Landlord and Tenant relationship. Petitioner's Father - Serandhiya Mudaliar had purchased the demised premises from one Ramasamy Mudaliar under Ex.P.1 – Sale Deed dated 22.06.1926. The Petitioner's Father - Serandhiya Mudaliar and his Brothers have partitioned the properties under Ex.P.2 – Partition Deed dated 21.12.1968. In the said Partition, the "C" Schedule Property viz., Petition mentioned property and other properties were allotted to the Petitioner. For the Petition mentioned property, as per Ex.P.3 – Order of Aruppukkottai Municipal Office, house tax has been levied in the name of the Petitioner. Exs.P.4 to P.7 are the House Tax Receipts paid by the Petitioner. On the basis of Ex.P.2-Partition Deed and other documents, the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority have rightly found that the Petitioner is the owner of the Petition mentioned property. 15. Case of the Respondent / Tenant is that he is the co-owner of the Petition mentioned property and other properties along with the Petitioner / Landlord. To substantiate his claim of co-ownership, the Respondent / Tenant has not adduced any evidence. The Sale Deed of the year 1892 – Ex.R.3 in the name of his Ancestors has been produced by the Respondent / Tenant. Ex.R.2-Genealogy of the Family has also been produced by the Respondent. To substantiate his claim of co-ownership, the Respondent / Tenant has not adduced any evidence. The Sale Deed of the year 1892 – Ex.R.3 in the name of his Ancestors has been produced by the Respondent / Tenant. Ex.R.2-Genealogy of the Family has also been produced by the Respondent. On the strength of Exs.R.2 and R.3, it cannot be concluded that the Respondent is in joint possession of the Petition mentioned property along with the Petitioner. The Petitioner has produced the Sale Deeds Exs.P.8 and P.9, showing that the Father of the Respondent has independently dealt with his properties. Ex.P.8 is the Sale Deed in favour of the Respondent's Father – Meenakshi Mudaliar by one Velayutha Mudaliar. Ex.P.9 is the Sale Deed by Meenakshi Mudaliar in favour of said Velayutha Mudaliar. Exs.P.8 and P.9 clearly show that the Respondent's Father – Meenakshi Mudaliar was separately dealing with his properties. While so, the Respondent cannot claim to be in joint possession of the Petition mentioned properties. The contention of the Respondent that he is in joint possession of the demised property was rightly negatived by the Courts below. 16. The Respondent / Tenant is said to have filed the Suit for Partition in O.S.No.256 of 1994, which is very much relied upon to show the joint ownership. Merely because the Partition suit has been filed, it cannot be concluded that the Respondent has joint right and entitlement to the Petition mentioned property. It is stated that the said Partition suit in O.S.No.256 of 1994 was already dismissed. That being so, the main ground urged by the Petitioner / Landlord no longer survives. The Eviction Petition was filed on the grounds of Wilful Default and own use and occupation. The Respondent has denied the Landlord / Tenant relationship during the Rent Control Proceedings. Though the Petitioner has not amended the Petition to include such denial as additional cause of action, the order of Eviction could be passed on the ground of denial of Title also. Denial of Title during the course of proceedings when found to be not bonafide is a ground for eviction and no amendment of pleading is required. On that ground also, the eviction could be ordered. 17. Wilful Default:- P.W.1 has clearly stated about the Landlord / Tenant relationship. To show that the Respondent is the Tenant, P.W.2-Subramanian – a neighbour has been examined. On that ground also, the eviction could be ordered. 17. Wilful Default:- P.W.1 has clearly stated about the Landlord / Tenant relationship. To show that the Respondent is the Tenant, P.W.2-Subramanian – a neighbour has been examined. P.W.2 has stated that six years prior to 1995, the Respondent was in occupation of Door No.22 as a Tenant. Door No.22 belongs to P.W.2-Subramanian. P.W.2 has stated that the Respondent was in occupation of Door No.22 as his Tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.20/-. P.W.2 has further stated that after vacating Door No.22, the Respondent has occupied the Petition mentioned property. To strengthen the evidence of P.W.2-Subramanian, Ex.P.11 – Voters List for the year 1978 has been produced. By perusal of Ex.P.11, the courts below have noted that S.No.1265 refers to Door No.22 – Pechi Muthu Mudaliar - Son of Menakshi Mudaliar. S.No.1266 refers to Manimegalai – Wife of Respondent. Manimegalai – Wife of Respondent is close relative of P.W.2. Regarding the occupation of Door No.22 as a Tenant of P.W.2, no explanation is forthcoming from the Respondent. The evidence of P.W.2 that after vacating Door No.22, the Respondent has occupied the demised premises was accepted by the courts below as natural and probable. The Courts below have found that the evidence of P.W.2 – Subramanian is natural and unassailable. There is no reason to take a different view. 18. P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the Default in payment of rent by the Respondent. It is stated that the Respondent has paid the rent upto November 1993. From December 1993, the Respondent has committed Wilful Default in not paying the rent. Since the Respondent has denied the Title of the Petitioner, naturally he might not have paid the rent to the Petitioner. On the evidence of P.W.1, the Courts below have rightly ordered eviction on the ground of Wilful Default. 19. In its order, the Appellate Authority has gone into the requirement for Own Use and Occupation. The Petitioner, who was employed in Railways has retired and is residing at Madurai. P.W.1 has stated that after retirement, he has desired to come to his native place – Aruppukkottai and he needs the Petition mentioned property for his own use and occupation. There is no reason to disbelieve the claim of the Petitioner for his own use and occupation. P.W.1 has stated that after retirement, he has desired to come to his native place – Aruppukkottai and he needs the Petition mentioned property for his own use and occupation. There is no reason to disbelieve the claim of the Petitioner for his own use and occupation. The courts below have rightly ordered eviction on the ground of Own Use and Occupation. E.P.No.39 of 2001 was filed to execute the order of Eviction. 20. In proper appreciation of evidence, the courts below have rightly ordered eviction. Appreciation of evidence and the reasonings of the Courts below does not suffer from erroneous approach or perversity warranting interference. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.1792 of 2002 has no merits and is bound to fail. E.P.No.39 of 2001 was ordered to be closed. It is open to the Petitioner to file a fresh application for Executing the Order of Eviction. 21. C.R.P.No.1792 of 2002:- For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-court), Aruppukkottai dated 11.07.2001 in R.C.A.No.3 of 2001 (arising out of the fair and decretal order dated 27.02.1996 of the Rent Controller, Aruppukkottai in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1994) is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Two months time is granted for vacating and handing over the vacant possession. 22. C.R.P.No.755 of 2005:- In view of the order passed in C.R.P.No.1792 of 2002, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. It is open to the Petitioner / Landlord to file a fresh Execution Petition. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in both the Civil Revision Petitions.