Judgment The revision petitioner is the tenant in the Rent Control proceedings, challenging the order of eviction passed against him in R.C.A.No.43 of 2005 before the Principal Sub-Court, Madurai. 2. The eviction petition is filed by the landlords on the ground of willful default and owners' occupation. The petitioner's family is said to be a joint family consisting of himself (who is the joint family Manager), his family members and the widow of the deceased elder brother and family. The petitioner herein is a tenant, who is in occupation of portion of the building in No.9 A Muthiah Pillai lane, Chinnakadai street, Madurai and the rent payable is Rs.100/- p.m., and it is payable as per the 'Tamil' calendar month. As the tenant defaulted in payment of rent from 25/11/1992, the eviction petition has been filed. 3. The landlord further submitted that his elder brother one R.S.Venkatraman died in the year 1980 and his family is also been living along with him as joint family. As the widowed wife of the elder brother wanted to have a separate establishment, the landlord wanted the premises for his own use and occupation. 4. The same was resisted by the tenant who is the revision petitioner herein contending that the premises did not belonged to the landlord and there was no landlord tenant relationship between them. 5. It was specifically contended by the tenant that the demised premises belong to one P.K.R.Seetharaman and he has been a tenant under him from 1975. Admittedly, the property belong to one Ramalingam Iyer and the said Seetharaman was his son. The tenant also claimed that he had paid the rent upto date without any default to the said P.K.R.Seetharaman. Therefore, the tenant claimed that there was no default and also contended that the requirement of the owners occupation was not maintainable as the wife of the deceased brother will not come under the definition of 'member of a family'. Hence prayed for dismissal of the O.P. 6. The Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently held that the tenant had committed willful default and the requirement of the landlord for the purpose of owners occupation is bona fide. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 8. Hence prayed for dismissal of the O.P. 6. The Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently held that the tenant had committed willful default and the requirement of the landlord for the purpose of owners occupation is bona fide. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 8. A. The question that has to be decided in this revision is whether the order of eviction granted by the authorities below is correct. (i). According to the landlord, the petition mentioned premises was taken on lease by the mother of the tenant viz., Rajamani on 27/11/1978 by virtue of a rent agreement letter. The rent agreed was Rs.100/- and an advance of Rs.1,000/- was given. After the death of Rajamani, the tenant, who is the son is continuing the tenancy. The tenant had paid the rents for the Tamil months of Avani, Purattasi and Iypasi, 1992 and thereafter, from the month of Karthigai, he defaulted in paying the rent. Hence eviction of the tenant should be allowed. (ii). It is argued by the learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to him, he was inducted as a tenant under one P.K.R.Seetharaman, who had inherited the property from his father P.K.Ramalinga Iyer and the monthly rent was Rs.10/-. The tenant had further contended that upto 26/12/1993, the rents have been paid and thereafter, when the tenant remitted the rent to the said Seetharaman, he refused to receive the same. Therefore, he had filed R.C.O.P.No.139 of 1994 to deposit the rent into Court. Though the tenant denied the fact that he had not taken the premises on rent from the present landlord, he admitted that he was the tenant in the premises. (iii). P.W.1 who is the landlord had deposed that his father is the kartha of the joint family and he had executed a sale on 9/5/1949 in favour of P.K.Ramalinga Iyer under Ex.P.3 for himself and on behalf of his minor son. Again, on 6/6/1949, the suit property was exchanged by the said P.K.Ramalinga Iyer and the father of the landlord P.R.Srinivasan by a registered exchange deed under Ex.P.4. The house tax receipts were filed as Exs.P.5 and 6 to prove the above fact. (iv). Again, on 6/6/1949, the suit property was exchanged by the said P.K.Ramalinga Iyer and the father of the landlord P.R.Srinivasan by a registered exchange deed under Ex.P.4. The house tax receipts were filed as Exs.P.5 and 6 to prove the above fact. (iv). From the above documents, it is clear that the property belong to the father of the landlord herein. Admittedly, the property is also a joint family property. The petitioner herein contended that the suit property is a trust property and therefore, the very application filed for eviction of the tenant is not maintainable under the Rent Control Act. Though the tenant had taken such a plea, during the argument, he had not pleaded so in the objections filed to the R.C.O.P. The tenant also contended that R.C.O.P.No.139 of 1994 was filed to deposit the rent as the said Seetharaman had refused to receive the rent. The said P.K.R.Setharaman is the respondent in R.C.O.P.No.139 of 1994. He had been examined in the said proceedings and his evidence has been marked as Ex.P.7. (v). A perusal of Ex.P.7 makes it clear that the said Seetharaman was never the owner of the petition mentioned property and he had not let the property for rent to the tenant herein. The evidence of the said Seetharaman under Ex.P.7 denied the case of the tenant and thereby the denial of title by the tenant is proved. B. The next question that has to be decided is whether there is a default by the tenant in payment of rent and if so, whether the same is wilful. (i). As per the R.C.O.P petition, the tenant had defaulted from November 1992 for three months. But the tenant had contended that he had paid the amount to the said Seetharaman and therefore, he had filed R.C.O.P.No.139 of 1994. It is not the case of the tenant that he had taken permission from the original landlord to remit the rent to P.K.R.Seetharaman. When the said Seetharaman himself had disowned the ownership of the property, as admitted in Ex.P.7, the version of the tenant that he had remitted to Seetharaman is unacceptable. Therefore, it is clear that the tenant had defaulted for the petition mentioned period. (ii). When the tenant had claimed that he has paid the rent to another person, who is not the owner whether the default would amount to willful. Therefore, it is clear that the tenant had defaulted for the petition mentioned period. (ii). When the tenant had claimed that he has paid the rent to another person, who is not the owner whether the default would amount to willful. The term 'Willful' refers to the act consciously and deliberately done. From the above explanation, the word 'willful default' appears to indicate that the default in order to be willful must be intentional, deliberate and calculated and conscious with the full knowledge of legal consequences flowing there from. (iii). In this case, the tenant had committed default willfully denying the ownership of the landlord. Therefore, the tenant can be said to be guilty of willful default because such a course of conduct manifestly amounts to willful default as contemplated by the Rent Control Act. C. The next question is whether the demised premises is required for the own occupation of the landlord. (i). The landlord had pleaded that their family is a joint family and after the demise of his elder brother, the elder brother's family has been facing problems in joint living. Hence the premises is required for having a separate establishment for the brother's family. When the landlord is having a joint family, it should be viewed in that sense and not in the strict sense of the members of the family. It is also established by the landlord that the petition mentioned premises is required for establishing a separate family for the widow of the deceased elder brother and children as presently they are all living in a joint family set up. The authorities below found that such a requirement is bonafide and ordered eviction. 9. From the foregoing facts, the tenant had willfully defaulted in paying the rent to the original landlord and also denied his title which alone would entitle the landlord for an order of eviction. In addition, the landlords had also asked for eviction on the ground of owners occupation which is also proved to be bona fide and the landlords had established the grounds of eviction and the tenant has got no valid defence and had failed to prove the same. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Three months time is given to petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand over the premises to the landlords. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.