Judgment :- The civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.30 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry, dated 2.11.2000 reversing the order of eviction dated 22.12.1998 made in H.R.C.O.P.No.38 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, on the ground of denial of title. 2. The revision petitioner, who is tile landlord, leased the schedule mentioned premises to the respondent by virtue of a lease dated 1.3.1993 for rent Rs.750 p.m. The respondent tenant is running a business in the premises under the name and style 'J.K.R. Surgicals.' The respondent failed to pay the rent from December 1996. Despite repeated demands, as the respondent did hot pay the rent, the petitioner issued a notice dated 7.5.1997 to which the respondent gave a reply containing untenable allegations. Hence, the petitioner filed A petition seeking for eviction of the respondent from the petition mentioned premises. 3. Denying the averments made in the petition, t lie respondent filed this Counter. 4. The Rent Controller framed the following points for determining the case of the petitioner: (a) Whether the respondent has committed wilful default in paying tile rents and as such liable to be evicted from the premises? (b) Whether the respondent has wantonly denied the title of the petitioner and as such liable to be, evicted from the premises? (c) To what reliefs the petitioner is entitled? 5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent has wilfully and wantonly denied the title of the petitioner and a[ lowed the petition. However, lie rejected, the claim of wilful default. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, while the petitioner filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.39 of 1999, tile, respondent filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.30 of 1999. 7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and rival claims, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, however, he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the petitioner has come forward with this revision petition. 9. The point to be decided in this petition is whether the order passed by the learned District Judge in R.C.A.No.30 of 1999 rejecting the ground of denial of title of the landlord is sustainable in law or not. 10. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the petitioner has come forward with this revision petition. 9. The point to be decided in this petition is whether the order passed by the learned District Judge in R.C.A.No.30 of 1999 rejecting the ground of denial of title of the landlord is sustainable in law or not. 10. It is true that tile revision petitioner herein filed the petition before, the Rent Controller, Pondicherry for evicting the respondent from the premises in which he was a tenant under Ex.A-1 dated 1.3.1993 on the basis of denial of title and wilful default. The said petition was filed by the landlord under Secs. 10(2)(1) and 10(2)(vii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. 11. On the basis of available evidence adduced by the petitioner and perusal of the relevant documents produced by the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of denial of title under Sec. 10(2)(vii) of the Act. However, the learned Rent Controller did not accept the ground of wilful default Under Sec. 10(2)(i) of the Act. 12. It is seen that as against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of denial of title of the landlord, the respondent tenant filed the appeal in R.C.A.No.30, of 1999. 13. As against the ground of rejection of wilful default the landlord filed the appeal in R.C.A.No.39 of 1999 praying to set aside the order. 14. At the conclusion of an enquiry, the learned District Judge, allowed the R.C.A.No..30 of 1999 filed by the tenant and dismissed the R.C.A.No.39 of 1999 filed by the landlord. As such, the grounds on which the petitioner attempted to evict the tenant from the premises were rejected by the learned District Judge. 15. As against the order passed in R.C.A.No.30 of 1999 rejecting the ground of denial of title, present revision has been preferred. 16. The only contention raised by the revision petitioner is that the respondent renounced his relationship with the petitioner as tenant and denied the title of the petitioner and for the purpose of denying the title of the landlord, the respondent tenant had purposefully obtained a subsequent lease deed in favour of himself as well as in the name of one Devaki. 17. 17. It could be seen that even though such contention raised on the side of the petitioner/landlord, such plea has not been raised or stated in the petition filed by the landlord. 18. Even in a reply notice under Ex.A-3 dated 24.5.1997, sent by the respondent/tenant to the landlord, such contention stated above by the respondent/tenant has not been referred to in the said notice. 19. In para.2 of the said notice, it is stated as follows: "That the shop demised to my client bearing door No.90, forms part of a building which belongs jointly to your client, his uncle Ramakrishnan and his cousin brother one Selvakumar alias Thambu who is now living in France." 20. Even in the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief of eviction, he has stated in the said petition as follows: "The petitioner submits that a lawyer notice dated 7.5.1997 was issued for which the respondent gave a reply dated 24.5.1997 raising untenable allegations and denied the title of the petitioner. The petitioner issued rejoinder dated 30.5.1997. The respondent is liable for eviction for denying the title of the petitioner, since the denial is not bonafide. 21. Apart from this nothing was stated with regard to the denial of title of the landlord in the petition. 22. In evidence also the petitioner has stated as follows: 23. The reason stated by the petitioner for denying his title by the respondent is that the respondent herein, purposefully entered into an agreement with the paternal uncle of the petitioner along with one Devaki. 24. It is pointed out that though the first lease agreement with the petitioner is subsisting, for the purpose of denying his title the respondent has created second agreement. Though the petitioner has stated in his evidence that after the execution of the second agreement, the respondent committed default in paying the rent also. However, such plea has not been stated in his petition. Apart from that the petitioner has not stated anything with regard to the denial of title by the respondent. 25. Emphasizing the above stated facts and legal position, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the act of the petitioner is attracting the provision under Sec.10(2)(vii) of the Act and therefore, the respondent is liable to be evicted. 26. 25. Emphasizing the above stated facts and legal position, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the act of the petitioner is attracting the provision under Sec.10(2)(vii) of the Act and therefore, the respondent is liable to be evicted. 26. Further, it is stated that the malafide intention of the respondent denying the title of the petitioner, is also proved and established. Under such circumstances, the decision arrived at by the learned District Judge is not, sustain­ able in, law and the findings on this ground are liable to be set aside. 27. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that it is a fact that the respondent his stated about the relationship of his paternal uncle with the petitioner. He never denied the title of the petitioner under any circumstances. Even after the issuance of the notice under Ex.A-3 to the petitioner, the respondent consistently paid the rent to the petitioner, however, with some delay. Further, the respondent to prove his bona fide intention, has filed a petition before the Court and deposited the arrears of rent. 28. Even though the petitioner initially has shown some reluctance in receiving the rent from the petitioner, he received the tent thereafter without any reluctance. This fact is also elaborately 'discussed by both the Courts below. 29. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that it is categorically stated as follows in the additional counter filed by the respondent. "This respondent has stated in the reply notice that the entire building belongs to the three brothers. However, the respondent has executed the lease in favour of the petitioner as he is the male member who is physically fit to execute the lease deed and representing the joint family even though, the lease is directly in favour of the petitioner. This respondent has merely stated the facts as they are about the joint ownership of the building and he has never denied the title of the petitioner or his right as landlord to collect the rent as contemplated by the Pondicherry Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act." 30. This respondent has merely stated the facts as they are about the joint ownership of the building and he has never denied the title of the petitioner or his right as landlord to collect the rent as contemplated by the Pondicherry Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act." 30. It is seen that to substantiate his contention, the respondent while adducing the evidence before the Court has stated as follows: "It is not true to suggest that I have wantonly denied the title of the petitioner and wantonly defaulted in praying rents…… It is not true to suggest that I wantonly and deliberately denied the title of the petition­ers. In Ex.B-1, I have accepted the peti­tioners as my landlord." 31. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the factum of alleged denial of title as stated by the peti­tioner has been elaborately dealt with by the learned District Judge while discussing the said point. 32. It is to be noted that even though the re­spondent has not explained as to why the sub­sequent agreement was executed by himself and Devaki in favour of the petitioner, during the course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the said document was executed by the re­spondent and Devaki only for the purpose of obtaining a telephone connection. For that pur­pose the partnership deed was also executed ...................... by the respondent and the said Devaki and the same was forwarded to the telephone depart­ment. It is pointed out that this fact is also ex­plained by the respondent in his evidence. 33. It is seen that the respondent has categori­cally admitted the suggestions put forth by the petitioner's counsel. It is stated as follows: "It is true that through Ex.X-3, I submitted a partnership deed between myself and Smt. Devaki to the telephone department and in­ formed them that I am doing partnership business in the premises. I submitted such partnership deed only to avert the discon­nection of telephone. It is true that I got a lease deed i.e., Ex.X-4 from Ramakrishnan to be produced to the subsistence of lease for the premises from the petitioner, I got Ex.X-4 from Ramakrishnan." 34. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the respondent would reveal his bonafide mind that he has categorically admitted the real facts before the Court. 35. It is true that I got a lease deed i.e., Ex.X-4 from Ramakrishnan to be produced to the subsistence of lease for the premises from the petitioner, I got Ex.X-4 from Ramakrishnan." 34. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the respondent would reveal his bonafide mind that he has categorically admitted the real facts before the Court. 35. Emphasizing these points, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent was drawing the attention of this Court to a reported decision of the Supreme Court. 36. In C. Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan (dead) by L.Rs. and others, (2000) 1 C.T.C 239, the Supreme Court held as follows: "17. To constitute denial of title of the landlord a tenant should renounce his character as tenant and set up title or right inconsistent with the relationship of landlord and tenant, in the absence of a notice of transfer of title in favour of the landlord or attornment of tenancy, a tenant's assertion that the landlord is a co-owner does not amount to denial of his title, unless, the tenant has also renounced his relationship as a tenant." 37. As already discussed above, the petitioner is, seeking for the relief of eviction of the respondent from the premises based on the ground of denial of title. Further, the petitioner herein has categorically stated in his notice under Ex.A-3 and in his additional counter statement, and in his evidence that he never denied the title of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the burden lies only on the petitioner to establish the ground of denial of title by the respondent. 38. At this juncture, this Court has to analyse the facts referred to by the petitioner in his petition, in his notice, and the facts stated in his evidence. 39. A careful analysis of the facts referred to above, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of denial of title as enunciated in the provision of law under Sec. 10(2)(vii) of the Act are not at all attracted and; not established by the petitioner. 40. In the light of the discussions held above, this Court of the view that the petitioner herein has not come forward with clear facts relating to the denial of title for seeking the relief of eviction by the respondent from the premises. 41. 40. In the light of the discussions held above, this Court of the view that the petitioner herein has not come forward with clear facts relating to the denial of title for seeking the relief of eviction by the respondent from the premises. 41. Moreover, whatever emphasized and stressed by the petitioner are not at all satisfactory and convincing for Arriving at a conclusion that the denial of title by the petitioner is established. 42. In such circumstances this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the decision arrived at by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed. No costs.