Judgment : 1. The revision petitioners, who are the respondents in the Rent Control Original Petition filed this revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2008 made in RCA No.1379 of 2005 on the file of VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 03.10.2005 made in RCOP No.86 of 1995 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. For the sake of convenience, the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner in the Original Petition referred as respondents 1 to 4 and the respondents in the above said RCOP are referred as revision petitioners hereafter. 3. On a perusal of records and from both side submission, it is revealed that the deceased respondent Nadesa Nayakar filed a petition in RCOP No.86 of 1995 for eviction under Section 10(3)a(1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. During the pendency of the original petition the above said Nadesa Nayakar died and respondents 1 to 4 impleaded as his legal heirs. Briefly the case of the respondents is that the land was purchased by the father of the deceased Nadesa Nayakar and constructed superstructure. After his father's death, Nadesa Nayakar was residing in the above said house. Therafter, he built another house in the same land and the respondents shifted their residence and letout the petition premises to the revision petitioners and they paid monthly rent of Rs.50/-according to English Calendar Month till December 1993. In the month of November 1993, due to heavy rain, part of roof of the petition premises was fell down and therefore, the revision petitioners shifted their residence to adjacent property of their own and tried to repair the roof of the petition premises. Therefore, the deceased Nadesa Nayakar filed a suit in O.S.No.9657 of 1993 before IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and in the above said proceedings, Court permitted the respondents to repair the roof and after repair, revision petitioners were allowed for their occupation. But, the revision petitioners not paid the rent after 1993 inspite of repeated demands. Therefore, the revision petitioners wilfully and wantonly neglected to pay the rent from December 1993 to December 1994. But, the revision petitioners not paid the rent after 1993 inspite of repeated demands. Therefore, the revision petitioners wilfully and wantonly neglected to pay the rent from December 1993 to December 1994. Further, the deceased Nadesa Nayakar had two sons namely Arjunan and Devaraj (R2 and R4) and they are residing in rental building and hence, the petition premises needs for their own occupation. On the above said two grounds the deceased Nadesa Nayakar filed the eviction petition. 4. On the side of the revision petitioners filed a detailed counter and denied various averments made in the eviction petition. According to the revision petitioners, the land in which the petition premises is situated is a puramboke land and it is belonged to the Government. The father of the revision petitioners had been living in the petition premises and after his death, the revision petitioners are residing in the premises. Therefore, the deceased Nadesa Nayakar or respondents 1 to 4 are not the owner of the petition premises either in the land or super-structure. According to the revision petitioners before filing original petition, existing super-structure was collapsed and the revision petitioners put up the present super-structure and therefore, the building belongs to the revision petitioners. Hence, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the revision petitioners and the respondents. Further, the suit in O.S.No.9657 of 1993 was pending before IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the revision petitioners wilfully and wantonly neglected to pay the monthly rent from December 1993 to December 1994 is absolutely false and the bonafide requirement for own occupation is also not true. Further, all the six sons and four daughters of the late Nadesa Nayakar are not impleaded. Therefore, this eviction petition is not maintainable. 5. The Rent Controller had discussed both side contentions and also considered the order passed by this Court in CRP No.1564 of 1999 and finally held that the relationship between the petitioners and the respondents have been proved and the petitioners committed wilful default in payment of rent from December 1993 to December 1994 and further held that the above said requirement for owners occupation also proved and therefore, allowed the above said eviction petition. 6. Aggrieved over the above said eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, the Revision Petitioners preferred Rent Control Appeal in RCA No.1379 of 2005. 6. Aggrieved over the above said eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, the Revision Petitioners preferred Rent Control Appeal in RCA No.1379 of 2005. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also considered the evidence and submissions and finally held that absolutely there is no documentary evidence or independent oral evidence to prove the contention of the revision petitioners. Further, High Court has passed an order in CRP No.1564 of 1999, one of the hut situated in Door No.1/2 and this eviction petition is related to another hut occupied by the revision petitioners. Further, the first appellate court also held that the respondents proved the relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the appellants and the respondents and the revision petitioners committed wilful default from December 1993 to December 1994 and the premises also required for owners occupation as pleaded in the eviction petition and therefore, finally confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. 7. Aggrieved over the above said concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority, the revision petitioners preferred this revision petition. 8. Point for consideration in the revision is that the concurrent findings of both Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority are perverse and illegal as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. 9. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.Venkadeshan for the revision petitioners and Mr.S.N.Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners mainly contended that the respondents have not proved the relationship of landlord and tenant but both authorities mainly considered the order passed by this Court in CRP No.1564 of 1999 as if, the above said portion of the property in the above said civil revision petition is one and the same portion in Door No.1/2 premises as shown in the schedule of property. But, both courts below failed to consider the fact that the revision petitioners are not parties in the above said proceedings and therefore, the above said orders passed in civil revision petition is not binding the revision petitioners. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that both courts below have not considered the fact that the original suit is also pending and therefore, the above said findings are perverse and also illegal. 11. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that both courts below have not considered the fact that the original suit is also pending and therefore, the above said findings are perverse and also illegal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords would submit that the respondents proved the fact that they are the owners of the property by adducing documentary evidence including sale deed and other documents. Further, High Court also accepted the contention of the respondents in CRP No.1564 of 1999. The learned counsel further pointed out that there are three huts in the same Door No.1/2 and the above said case is relating to one of the three huts and this petition is relating to another hut in the same Door No.1/2. The learned counsel further submitted that the revision petitioners had not adduced any documents or oral evidence to prove that the land belongs to the Government and the super-structure put up by them. Therefore, the findings of both courts below are not perverse or illegal as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that after disposal of the Rent Control Appeal, the respondents herein had taken steps to delivery of the property by filing execution petition and accordingly petition premises was already delivered to the respondents on 03.03.2008 itself and the above said delivery also recorded by the Rent Controller and hence, nothing survives in this Civil Revision Petition. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners not disputed the fact that the petition premises was duly delivered to the respondents in the execution proceedings, but, the learned counsel submitted that if this Court accept the contention of the revision petitioners that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between parties and then the revision petitioners are entitled to take steps to re-delivery and therefore, the order passed in execution petition is not barred to claim the rights in this revision petition. 13. On the side of the respondents filed Rent Control Original Petition to evict the revision petitioners on two grounds namely a) Wilful default in payment of rent b) Bonafide requirement of owners occupation. 14. 13. On the side of the respondents filed Rent Control Original Petition to evict the revision petitioners on two grounds namely a) Wilful default in payment of rent b) Bonafide requirement of owners occupation. 14. Both sides admitted that the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently held that the respondents are entitled to evict the revision petitioners on the above said two grounds and also both sides admitted that as per concurrent findings of both courts below, the respondents herein filed execution petition and in the above said execution petition delivery was ordered as per eviction order and the property was also delivered to the respondents on 03.03.2008 itself. 15. The main contention of the revision petitioners is that in CRP No.1564 of 1999 proceedings, this petitioners are not parties, therefore, the above said findings are not affect the revision petitioners and on that basis it cannot be presumed that the respondents are landlord and revision petitioners are tenants in the petition premises. 16. It is revealed from the records that there are three huts in Door No.1/2, Mettu Street, Kodungayur, Madras. The revision petitioners are residing as tenant in one hut and in another hut, one Boopathi Nayakar was in possession as a tenant under the respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, with the same pleadings as averred in the present RCOP, the respondents filed eviction petition against the above said Boopathi Nayakar in RCOP No.1683 of 1992 and he also claimed right in the above said property as claimed by the present revision petitioners. But, this Court has discussed in detail about both side contentions and also on perusal of evidence, finally confirmed the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority and dismissed the above said Civil Revision Petition filed by the above said tenant. But, this Court has discussed in detail about both side contentions and also on perusal of evidence, finally confirmed the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority and dismissed the above said Civil Revision Petition filed by the above said tenant. Further, both Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority has discussed about oral evidence adduced on either side and also considered the documentary evidence on the side of the respondents (i.e.) Ex.P1 sale deed, Ex.P2 copy of order passed in RCOP No.1683 of 1992 dated 26.08.1994, Ex.P3 copy of order passed in RCOP No.71 of 1992 dated 31.01.2002, Ex.P4 copy of order passed in CRP No.1564 of 1999 dated 13.02.2001 and Ex.P5 photos and negatives and finally held that the respondents are the landlord and the revision petitioners are tenants under the respondents. 17. Per contra, on the side of the respondents are not produced any documents to prove that the land in which put up the super-structure is Government land and the revision petitioners put up the above said huts as alleged in the counter except the interested oral evidence of RW1. Therefore, both courts below have correctly discussed and held that the petition premises is belonged to the respondents and the denial of title by the revision petitioners is not bonafide and the revision petitioners wilfully defaulted in payment of rent and also it is required for owners occupation as stated in the original petition. Therefore, no need to interfere in the above said correct findings of both courts below since the findings are not perverse or illegal. Further, both sides admitted that the respondents filed an execution petition and the property was already handed over to the respondents/landlords in the execution proceedings. The revision petitioners have not challenged the above said subsequent orders passed in the execution proceedings and also not taken any steps for re-delivery of property. 18. Further, both sides admitted that the respondents filed an execution petition and the property was already handed over to the respondents/landlords in the execution proceedings. The revision petitioners have not challenged the above said subsequent orders passed in the execution proceedings and also not taken any steps for re-delivery of property. 18. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relied on a decision reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788 (Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal) and submitted that the landlord and tenant relationship between revision petitioners and respondents are denied and in the above said circumstances, the question of title can be considered only incidentally and to ascertain bonafide of denial of title by the revision petitioners and in the instant case, the revision petitioners denied the title with bonafide reasons and therefore, the findings of both courts below are not correct. A careful reading of the above said decision revealed that the above said facts of the case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case as already discussed, this Court has already given findings in earlier Civil Revision Petition as the respondents are landlords in Door No.1/2. Further, the respondents produced title deeds and also earlier eviction orders passed in other proceedings. Therefore, the above said facts of the case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 19. The learned counsel relied on other three decisions reported in 1. 1984 (1) MLJ 155 (T.Sivasankaran v. H.K.N. Kacharlal Sowcar), 2. 1998 (1) LW 288 (A.G.Pasupathy, v. Mohamed Ismail), 3. 2006 (4) CTC 546 Anand Properties represented by its Partners, L.Dharmichand & P.Vinod v. Middle Rama Rao and others) and submitted that if the contention of the revision petitioners accepted by this Court, then the revision petitioners are entitled to restitution of possession eventhough already delivered the possession to the respondents. The above said decisions are also not helpful to the revision petitioners since the facts are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case, as already discussed, the respondents have proved the relationship of landlord and tenant by adducing evidence and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to restitution. 20. The above said decisions are also not helpful to the revision petitioners since the facts are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case, as already discussed, the respondents have proved the relationship of landlord and tenant by adducing evidence and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to restitution. 20. From the above said discussion, it is clear that the respondents are entitled to the relief as prayed for in the eviction petition and the concurrent findings of both the courts below are not perverse or illegal findings as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and there is no need to interfere in the above said correct findings. 21. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.