Judgment : This order shall govern the above civil revision petitions, six in number. 2. Challenging an order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, these civil revision petitions have been brought forth. 3. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. Originally, the respondents filed 16 RCOPs before the Rent Controller, seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of willful default, alleging that there was rental arrears from August, 1998 to December, 1998; that on 16 RCOPs., on enquiry, eviction was ordered; that all of them took it by way of 16 RCAs. and the order of the Rent Controller was affirmed on 14. 2005; that out of 16 tenants, 11 preferred revision petitions before this court; that a conditional order, at the time of initiation of proceedings before this court for depositing the arrears of rent was made, but it was complied by the revision petitioners herein and so far as the other revision petitioners are concerned, they have not complied with the order and under these circumstances, those petitions were dismissed and that so far as the above civil revision petitions are concerned, the court heard the learned counsel on either side and the following order is passed. .4. The landlord/respondents herein filed RCOPs stating that the properties originally belonged to one Natesa Pillai; that he mortgaged the properties to one Flora Sam; that in view of non payment of mortgage amount, the properties were brought for sale; that one Renugopal Mudaliar has purchased the properties on court auction sale; that out of the said properties, a larger extent of 1359 sq. ft. area along with thatched hut were sold by Renugopal Mudaliar to the landlord/the respondents herein; that till July, 1998, rental payments were made and thereafter, there was no payment of rental and there was notice issued; that some of them received, but not replied and some of them refused to receive the same and under these circumstances, there arose a necessity for the landlord to file RCOPs for eviction. All the tenants had a common defence, stating that they have been in the property for the past four decades and they raised superstructure; that the properties neither belonged to the landlord nor there was any mortgage or sale of the property on court auction; that the said Renugopal Mudaliar did not become the owner of the property on court auction sale; that he did not execute sale deed in favour of the landlord and there was no landlord and tenants relationship between them and that all the petitions were to be dismissed. The evidence was adduced on both sides. After hearing both sides, the Rent Controller has passed an order of eviction. Aggrieved all the tenants took it on appeals and the appeals were dismissed. Not satisfied with the order of the appellate forum, the tenants have brought forth these civil revision petitions before this court. 5. The only contention that was raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners was that in the instant case what was stated before both the forum was there was no tenant landlord relationship; that the title of the landlord was denied; that when the title of the landlord was denied, a specific question as to the denial of title should have been raised and it should have been answered with a specific finding; and that it has not been done so and under these circumstances, not only the order of the Rent Controller, but also the order of the appellate forum were defective in nature. Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the tenants were able to show that they had electric service connection; that there were writ petitions filed, when there was denial by the electric Department to give electric service connection and thus, there was no payment of rental at any point of time and under these circumstances, factually also, the landlord and tenant relationship has not been proved by the respondents herein and under these circumstances, the orders of the authorities below have got to be set aside. .6. .6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, would submit that in the instant case, the petitioners herein were examined and for payment of rental, acknowledgements thereon were also brought to the notice of the lower court and there were exchange of notices; that originally, notice was received in two cases by the respective fathers of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and it is also admitted; that even there was communication addressed by them; that it is pertinent to point out that so far as these revision petitioners are concerned, all were denied electric service connection; that when there was denial, they filed writ petitions before this court; that on coming to know about the same, the landlord intervened by filing an application to implead; that the landlord was also impleaded; that the court came to the conclusion that they are all tenants and without the consent of the landlord, they sought for electric service connection and they were not entitled to for the same and so saying, the writ petitions were dismissed by this court; that it was a case where there was denial of title without any basic material at all; that in a case where the denial of title is bona fide, such a finding could be given and in the instant case, it is not a bona fide denial; that the tenants made a feeble attempt to deny the same and under these circumstances, all these aspects have considered by the authorities below and an order of eviction has been passed and it has got to be sustained. .7. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, the court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the appellate forum, affirming the order of the Rent Controller, has got to be sustained. As on today, it would be quite evident from the materials available that the respondents/landlord have proved that they purchased the property from the original owner and thus, so far as the question of landlord and tenant relationship was concerned, sufficient materials were placed and they were perused and scrutinised by the authorities below and they have also found that there was landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Apart from that, the documentary evidence were also produced in respect of recognising the respondents herein as landlord to the properties in question. Apart from that, the documentary evidence were also produced in respect of recognising the respondents herein as landlord to the properties in question. The other contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that once there was bona fide denial of title, the authorities below should have recorded a specific finding in that regard, but not done so and hence, the orders of the authorities below were infirm and defective and they have got to be set aside cannot be countenanced at all. In the instant case, once there was recognition of landlord by the tenant and rental payments were also made and it was evident from the documentary evidence, the tenants are estopped from questioning the same and without any material, the revision petitioners have denied the title of the landlord. The mere filing of counter in a case, seeking for eviction, would not be sufficient to raise the question and record a finding as to whether there was bona fide denial of title or not. But, in the instant case, there was no material placed before the authorities below. Further, the plea of adverse possession raised by the tenants before the authorities below have been rightly rejected. Under these circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that the orders of the authorities below have got to be sustained. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the tenants are in huts for more than 40 years and hence, sufficient time has got to be given for them to get a suitable accommodation and that too in a city of Madras. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no objection for granting a reasonable time. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the tenants have been in the property for four decades and they are actually residing in the huts in the city of Madras, the court is of the considered opinion that they have got to be given sufficient time to get suitable accommodation. Accordingly, nine months time is granted to the revision petitioners/tenants to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the landlord. The revision petitioners are directed to file an undertaking affidavit to that effect within a period of two weeks herefrom. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.