Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Revision Petitions are arisen from the order dated 13. 2007 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A. Nos.730 and 731 of 2004, whereby the order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P. Nos.92 and 91 of 1999 dismissing the Applications filed by the revision petitioner for eviction was reversed, by granting order of eviction. 2. Originally both the respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions filed R.C.O.P. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999 against the revision petitioners, alleging that the first respondent is the father of the petitioners and the sec respondent; that the premises bearing Door No.6, Bharathiswarar Colony Street, Kodambakkam originally belonged to the first respondent; that under a registered settlement deed dated 110. 1995, the first respondent settled the property in favour of the second respondent and thus the second respond is the absolute owner of the property; that the petitioners were tenants under the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-, besides electricity and water charges for residential purpose; that the petitioners failed to pay the rent from March, 1996 and committed willful default; that they are causing nuisance to the respondents and creating unpleasant scenes during night hours and that the property is required for demolition and for the purpose of new construction. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioners were to be evicted from the property. 3. Both the respondents filed their counter inter-alia stating that the alleged settlement deed dated 110. 1995, even if it was executed, was not valid. The respondents are not the owners of the property and the petitioners never cause any nuisance as alleged. The petitioners are making the payment Rs.100/-as maintenance charges, After marriage; they have been occupying a portion of the same property. They have also given a sum of Rs.30,000/- each to the first respondent in the year 1991-92 for altering and improving the petition mentioned property. The petitioners have been paying water charges and electricity charges regularly to the first respondent. The first respondent received maintenance charges upto January, 1999, but did not give any receipt. Only at the instance of the second respondent, the Present Petitions have been filed. There were no arrears of rent as on the date of Petition. The petitioners have been paying water charges and electricity charges regularly to the first respondent. The first respondent received maintenance charges upto January, 1999, but did not give any receipt. Only at the instance of the second respondent, the Present Petitions have been filed. There were no arrears of rent as on the date of Petition. The petitioner in C.R.P. No.1067 of 2007 also contributed a sum Rs.1,00,000/-to the first respondent on his request for construction of first floor. Hence, there is no need for demolition or new construction. All these averments made by the respondents in the Petitions were false. There was no ground to order eviction. Hence both the Petitions are to be dismissed. 4. The Rent Controller, on enquiry, dismissed both the Petitions, since no ground was made out. The aggrieved landlords took it on Appeal. The Appellate Forum on enquiry found that the respondents/landlords have made the ground of willful default and ordered eviction, though not prepared to accept other two grounds. The above Civil Revision Petitions are arisen at the instance of the revision petitioners/tenants. 5. In support of the Civil Revision Petitions, learned counsel Mr. Lakshminarayanan would submit that in the instant case, the property belongs to the joint family, in which the revision petitioners have got their respective shares; that they have filed a Suit for partition; that they have denied the exclusive title of either the first respondent or the second respondent in R.C.O.P. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999. Even assuming, settlement deed was executed, the possession should have been given to the second respondent, but the same was not acted upon. Even if it is true, the first respondent need not be added as party. There was no rental payment at any point of time either to the first respondent or to the second respondent. The petitioners made payments towards maintenance charges only. The respondents are calling themselves as landlords. In the instant case, there was a thorough denial of title. The denial of title was also bona fide, which could be seen from the circumstances noticed. 6. Apart from that, in the absence of any jurd relationship between the landlord and the tenant, the Appellate Forum on surmises ordered eviction. The Rent Controller marshaled the evidence adduced by both sides properly and rightly dismissed the Petitions. The denial of title was also bona fide, which could be seen from the circumstances noticed. 6. Apart from that, in the absence of any jurd relationship between the landlord and the tenant, the Appellate Forum on surmises ordered eviction. The Rent Controller marshaled the evidence adduced by both sides properly and rightly dismissed the Petitions. In the instant case, the first respondent has not examined himself as P.W.1 though called to be the owner of the property and the second respondent has examined herself as P.W.1, who is added as party, which would indicate that the settlement deed what was alleged to have been executed was not acted upon. No rent has been collected by the second respondent at any point of time, which would reflect from her evidence. All would show that it is neither jural relationship nor proof for rental payment. Apart from this, there is bona fide denial of title. In the circumstances, the Appellate Court should have affirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller, but not done so. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decisions reported in the case of Pandurang v. Ramchandra, AIR 1981 SC 2235 ; J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd v. M.R. Murali, 2002 (1) CTC 487: AIR 2002 SC 1061 ; Swami Krishnanand Govindanand v. M/s. M.D. Oswal Hosiery (Regd.), 2002 (2) MLJ 120 (SC); A.V.G.P. Chettiar & Sons v. T. Palanisamy Gounder, 2002 (2) CTC 628: AIR 2002 SC 2171 ; Kothandapani v. Dhanammal, 2004 (2) MLJ 145 ; and Ayyakannu Gounder v. Virudhambal Ammal, 2005 (1) CTC 409 : 2005 (1) MLJ 14 . 8. Contrary to the above, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that both the revision petitioners were tenants under the first respondent-Munusamy, who was the original landlord and he has executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter/second respondent and also put her in possession and she becomes the owner of the property. The petitioners were actually tenants, making the payment of Rs.100/- per month in respect of the portion occupied by them. It is the exclusive property, which actually belonged to the first respondent. This fact is well admitted by the revision petitioners in the Suit filed by them in O.S. No.6502 of 1998, which has been marked as Ex.P.3 before the lower Court. It is the exclusive property, which actually belonged to the first respondent. This fact is well admitted by the revision petitioners in the Suit filed by them in O.S. No.6502 of 1998, which has been marked as Ex.P.3 before the lower Court. Hence, they are stopped from denying the ownership of the first respondent. 9. Added further, even in their counter, they have candidly admitted that they have paid the rent and no rental arrears pending the proceedings. They have filed a memo stating that they have paid the rents and they are ready to make further payment of rents. Both the petitioners have not been examined. Their respective wives have been examined as R.Ws.1 and 2. They have categorically spoken to the fact that the respective memos were filed on the instructions given by the petitioners. Once the jural relationship was proved and there were arrears of rent, which they failed to pay, the default committed by the petitioners is willful default. Hence, the Appellate Court has rightly set aside the order of the Rent Controller and has allowed the Petitions for eviction and the same has got to be sustained. 10. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for either side. 11. The respondents filed R.C.O.P. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999 for eviction of the revision petitioners in these Civil Revision Petitions. It is not in controversy that the first respondent is the father and the second respondent is the daughter and the revision petitioners are sons of the first respondent. The first respondent joined with his daughter in making Petitions before the Rent Controller that these petitioners were tenants under him and making the payment of Rs.100/-as monthly rent; that settlement deed was executed infavour of the second respondent-daughter and that she was also put in possession. 12. It is the case of the landlord before the Rent Controller that the petitioners have committed willful default and apart from that, they caused nuisance by creating scenes during night hours and also the property was required for demolition and new construction. The Rent Controller dismissed the Petitions. On Appeal, the Appellate Forum found that the ground of willful default was made out by the landlords to get an order of eviction. 13. The Rent Controller dismissed the Petitions. On Appeal, the Appellate Forum found that the ground of willful default was made out by the landlords to get an order of eviction. 13. In the instant case, the main defence plea is that the Petition mentioned premises belonged to joint family in which the revision petitioners are also having share and they have filed a Suit for partition. There was no jurd relationship between the petitioners and the respondents and also once there was a bona fide denial of title by the petitioners, the Petitions filed for eviction should have been dismissed. 114. The first and foremost point that requires for consideration is whether the petitioners are tenants under the respondents or not. P.W.1 is the daughter of the first respondent-Munusamy. She has categorically deposed to the effect that these revision petitioners were her brothers and they were the tenants under her father and they were making the payment of Rs.100/-towards rent. There was a default in payment of rental by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, they have committed willful default and hence the instant petitions have been brought forth before this Court. The respondents placed much reliance on the averments made by the revision petitioners in the Plaint filed by them in O.S. No.6502 of 1998, which was marked as Ex.P.3. It would be more opt and appropriate to reproduce the following averments in the Plaint in O.S. No.6502 of 1998, which is marked as Ex.P.3. "3. The plaintiffs submit that they are brothers and the defendant viz. A. Munusamy is their father. The defendant is the absolute owner and the landlord of the suit property viz. No.6, Baratheeswarar Colony III Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24. The plaintiffs further state that the defendant is also residing in one of the portion of the above said premises. 7. The plaintiffs state that after the transaction of the notices also they have been paying the rent and paying the electricity charges and water charges to the defendant. The defendant has been receiving the same. The defendant has been acknowledging the receipt of the above said charges." 15. The aforesaid Suit was filed by the revision petitioners for permanent injunction against the first respondent herein/their father not to interfere with their possession, except by due process of law. The defendant has been receiving the same. The defendant has been acknowledging the receipt of the above said charges." 15. The aforesaid Suit was filed by the revision petitioners for permanent injunction against the first respondent herein/their father not to interfere with their possession, except by due process of law. The reading of the above two paragraphs would clearly indicate that the petitioners have made it clear that the property absolutely belonged to Munusamy, the first respondent herein and they are actually tenants under him and they have been making the payment ofRs.100/-towards rent. When these R.C.O.Ps. were filed, contrary to the averments made in the Plaint in O.S. No.6502 of 1998, they averred that they have paid Rs.100/- towards maintenance charges. .16. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that in a given case, the simple denial of title of the landlord would not be sufficient. The main consideration would be whether it was a bona fide denial of title. In the instant case, the Court is unable to see any strong case or sufficient material to support the plea of denial of title of the landlord. In the instant case, they have well admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant in the form of Plaint. In such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the principle of estoppels is applied and the petitioners are estopped from questioning the title of the landlord. 17. The added circumstance is that learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the property belonged to joint family, wherein they are members. But, nowhere in the counter, it is found that the property belonged to the joint family. It has been stated that they were living jointly in the property. Apart from that, mere averment that they have been living jointly and they have been making contribution for construction and repairs would not serve any purpose. The Court is of the considered opinion that as per the averments made in the Plaint in O.S. No.6502 of 1998, which was marked as Ex.P.3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, it is highly difficult to say that there was a bona fide denial of title. All the materials available before the Court would show that it was not the bona fide denial of title. It was only subterfuge invented for this case. All the materials available before the Court would show that it was not the bona fide denial of title. It was only subterfuge invented for this case. Mere filing of partition Suit cannot be a reason to render or hold that the denial of title made by the tenants in R.C.O.P. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999 is bona fide. Such contention has to be rejected. 18. In the instant case, originally the revision petitioners came forward with the case that there was no tenant-landlord relationship and they are not bound to pay the rent, but in the Plaint filed by them they stated that they were tenants and making the payment of Rs.100/- per month as rent. These petitioners have admitted the same. They have also stated that they are tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. But, there is no evidence whether they have paid the rental payment of Rs.100/-. They have stated that they have paid the amount of Rs.100/- towards maintenance charges. Apart from this, even no receipt is produced for payment of anything, which in the opinion of the Court would suffice to order eviction. .19. Under such circumstances, the Appellate Forum has clearly marshaled the evidence and come to the conclusion that there was no bona fide denial of title. The petitioners have stated only for the purpose of this, case. They were tenants as per their admission under the payment of Rs.100/- towards monthly rental, which can be analyzed from the Plaint. They have failed to pay the rent, since no evidence of payment was produced, which can be termed as willful default. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that willful default is committed by the petitioners. The Civil Revision Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. 20. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are occupying the respective portions and their children are studying in the nearby school and it is difficult for them to find out a new accommodation at this stage. Hence, he seeks time to vacate and hand over the possession. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who is amenable to grant reasonable time. It is a fit case where time could be granted to vacate the property, since children are studying in the school. Hence, he seeks time to vacate and hand over the possession. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who is amenable to grant reasonable time. It is a fit case where time could be granted to vacate the property, since children are studying in the school. Accordingly, time is granted to the petitioners for a period of twelve months here from. The petitioners should file an affidavit of undertaking within a period of two weeks here from. No costs.