ORDER : P.B. BALAJI, J. The tenant who suffered an order of fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. 2. The RCOP No.925 of 2013 was filed before XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai by the respondents as against the revision petitioner and his brother, Mr.J.Baskar under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 18/60, as amended by Act -23 of 1973 (in short 'Act'). 3. The case of the respondents/landlords was that the petitioner and his brother are not paying rent consumerate the market rents in the locality and therefore, fair rent had to be fixed for the respondents/landlords' building. Before the Rent Controller, an Engineer was examined on the side of the respondents landlord as P.W.1 and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked. Neither the petitioner nor his brother chose to cross examine P.W.1 and based upon the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,37,238/- per month. The brother of the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent. However, the revision petitioner herein preferred RCA. No.536 of 2017 before the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The Appellate Authority confirmed the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller as against which the present revision has been preferred. 4. I have heard Mr.E.Prabu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.P.Ashok, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would submit that even in the counter affidavit filed before the Rent Controller, the revision petitioner had taken a specific plea denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and in such circumstances, the respondents/landlords ought to have entered the witness box and established existence of landlord-tenant relationship between themselves and the revision petitioner and his brother, one J.Baskar. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Prabu, would therefore submit that the Courts ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondents and dismissed the RCOP instead of proceeding to fix fair rent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Prabu, would therefore submit that the Courts ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondents and dismissed the RCOP instead of proceeding to fix fair rent. 6. The learned counsel would further submit that when existence of landlord-tenant relationship was the foundation for the applicability of the Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have miserably failed to apply their minds to the defence raised by the revision petitioner and erroneously fixed fair rent for the premises. 7. He would further state that there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the respondents/landlords to establish that the revision petitioner was associated with the business of the father late B.Jayaraj who alone was the tenant under the respondents/landlords. In this connection, he would invite my attention to the definition of the tenant under Section2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In this connection, he would invite my attention to the definition of the tenant under Section2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Section 2(8) in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (8)[ "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased tenant who-] [Substituted by section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendments Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973).] (i)in the case of residential building, had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family up to the death of the tenant, and (ii)in the case of a non-residential building, had been in continuous association with the tenant for the purpose of carrying on the business of the tenant up to the death of the tenant and continues to carry on such business thereafter, and a person continuing in the possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been formed out or leased by a municipal council or a panchayat union council for the municipal corporation of [Chennai][Substituted for the word 'Madras' by the City of Madras (Alteration of Name) Act, 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1996).] or the municipal corporation of Madurai. and contended that merely being a legal heir of the deceased tenant would not include such legal heir to come within the definition of tenant under the special provisions of Rent Control Act, unless it is shown that the said legal heir was associated with the business of the tenant. Mr.Prabu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would therefore pray for the revision being allowed and the order fixing fair rent being set aside. 8. Mr.Prabu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would therefore pray for the revision being allowed and the order fixing fair rent being set aside. 8. Per contra, Mr.K.P.Ashok, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the brother of the revision petitioner having accepted the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller by not even preferring an appeal by way of RCA, it was not open to the revision petitioner to contend that the revision petitioner is not a tenant especially when similar defence was set up by the revision petitioner and his brother before the Rent Controller. 9. Mr.K.P.Ashok, learned counsel for the respondents would further state that even in the RCA and also in the above Civil Revision Petition, the Revision Petitioner has not chosen to implead his brother as a party respondent. Therefore, in view of non joinder also, the learned counsel for the respondents would pray for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 10. Mr.K.P.Ashok, further would take me through proceedings before the Rent Controller and he contends that neither the revision petitioner nor his brother, cross examined the Engineer examined by the respondents/landlords as P.W.1 and they also did not enter the witness box to lead evidence. He would further state that when the averment made by the respondents that the father of the revision petitioner was the original tenant, was not even specifically denied, it was not open to the sons to claim that they were not associated with the business of the father. In this connection, he would invite my attention to the pleadings with regard to the father of the revision petitioner Mr.Jayaraj himself having sublet the respondents' premises to one G. Somu (Balajee Booking Office) and to M/s.K.V.Naidu Services and therefore, in such circumstances, he would contend that the definition of tenant under Section 2(8) of the Act cannot be pressed into service. 11. Mr.K.P.Ashok would further submit that apart from the petition for fixation of fair rent, the respondents also moved an eviction petition against the revision petitioner and his brother, Baskar and also sub- tenants on the grounds of willful default in payment of rents, subletting, demolition and reconstruction in RCOP. No.924 of 2013. 12. 11. Mr.K.P.Ashok would further submit that apart from the petition for fixation of fair rent, the respondents also moved an eviction petition against the revision petitioner and his brother, Baskar and also sub- tenants on the grounds of willful default in payment of rents, subletting, demolition and reconstruction in RCOP. No.924 of 2013. 12. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, even in the said proceedings, the revision petitioner and his brother did not choose to lead any evidence and only his sub-tenants filed counter, admitting the sub tenancy. The said RCOP was allowed and eviction was ordered and the respondents initiated Execution Proceedings in E.P. No.90 of 2016 and took physical possession from the sub tenants on 17.03.2022. He would therefore state that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, fixed the fair rent. 13. Mr.K.P.Ashok would also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3325 ; (ii) Kishinchand Chellarams (India) Private Limited Vs. G.Varadappa, reported in 1999-1-LW.495; (iii) M/s.Raval and Company V. K.G.Ramachandran and others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 424 ; (iv) Sha Poosaji Mangilal Vs. The South Indian Humanitarian League, reported in 2009 (2) CTC 25 . 14. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have carefully gone through the records received from the Small Cause Courts. 15. The respondents have filed RCOP. No . 925 of 2013 under Section 4 of the Act seeking to fix fair rent. In the petition filed in support of the said Application for fixation of fair rent, the respondents herein as petitioners have stated that the petitioners are the tenants under the first respondent Trust and originally their father, one D.Jayaraj was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- and after his death, the respondents being sons and legal heirs have become the statutory tenants. The respondents have also stated that they have filed separate petition for eviction on the ground of willful default, sub letting, demolition and reconstruction in RCOP. No.924 of 2013. 16. Meeting the said averments in the petition, the brother of the revision petitioner, Baskar filed a counter affidavit before the Rent Controller, admitting that the petitioner and the said Baskar are the sons of late.Jayaraj. No.924 of 2013. 16. Meeting the said averments in the petition, the brother of the revision petitioner, Baskar filed a counter affidavit before the Rent Controller, admitting that the petitioner and the said Baskar are the sons of late.Jayaraj. The brother of the revision petitioner has pleaded ignorance about any rental agreement between his father and the respondents herein. In fact, he has stated that his father resided and died only at the house of the revision petitioner herein and therefore, the second respondent i.e., the revision petitioner may be aware of the agreement, sub letting etc. 17. The revision petitioner filed a separate counter affidavit stating that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between himself and the respondents/landlords. A further plea is taken that the landlord being a Public Charitable Trust was exempt from the provisions of the Rent Control Act and hence, the petition for fixation of fair rent was not maintainable. Curiously, the revision petitioner has further stated that he was never in occupation of the respondents/landlords' premises and he was not aware of his father being a tenant under the respondents/landlords and that he has also not aware of persons in occupation of the said premises. He has further stated that since he is not interested in the tenanancy rights, he did not choose to contest even the eviction proceedings when there was no landlord-tenant relationship. 18. Normally, when the revision petitioner had disputed the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, the respondents ought to have adduced evidence to establish existing of jural relationship between the landlord and tenant. However, it is seen that eviction proceedings were also initiated against the revision petitioner, his brother and the sub tenants. Admittedly, the said eviction proceedings were also not contested by the revision petitioner and possession was taken in execution proceedings only from the sub-tenants. 19. The pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition in RCOP No.924 of 2013 are not marked before the Rent Controller in the fair rent proceedings. Thus I am not in a position to ascertain whether the Rent Controller has gone into the issue of existence of landlord-tenant relationship before ordering eviction or has simply proceeded to pass an order of eviction based on the admission of the sub-tenants that there has been subletting without the written consent from the landlords. Thus I am not in a position to ascertain whether the Rent Controller has gone into the issue of existence of landlord-tenant relationship before ordering eviction or has simply proceeded to pass an order of eviction based on the admission of the sub-tenants that there has been subletting without the written consent from the landlords. If the issue had been gone into in the eviction proceedings, then it is not open to the revision petitioner to continue to state that there is no landlord-tenant relationship. However, presently, I am confronted only with the order of fixation of fair rent which is under challenge in the revision petition. 20. Law is well settled with regard to the fixation of fair rent. The fair rent fixed under Section 4 is for the tenanted premises and not for the tenant. In fact, even if the tenant vacates the tenanted premises, the order fixing fair rent for the building would bind even the subsequent tenants who come to occupy the tenanted premises. The decisions of this Court in M/s.Raval and Company and Kishinchand Chellarams (India) Private Limited (referred herein supra), have dealt with this specific aspect and laid down in clear terms that fair rent being for the building, the question of even a statutory or contractual tenancy would be irrelevant. 21. Therefore, in the light of the settled legal position and when admittedly, the respondents are claiming to be landlords and also having succeeded in the eviction petition filed by them, they are well within the rights to seek fair rent to be fixed for the building. However, when a specific plea has been taken that there is no jural relationship between the land lord and tenant, it would be the bounden duty of the respondents/landlords to adduce evidence to establish the existence of landlord-tenant relationship for maintaining the Rent Control proceedings for fixation of rent or eviction as the case may be. However, the facts of the present case are quite peculiar. 22. It is the specific case of the respondents/landlords that the father of the petitioner was originally a tenant under the respondents and that he had sublet the premises to two sub-tenants against whom also eviction proceedings had been initiated and the respondents also succeeded in obtaining an order of eviction in the said proceedings. 22. It is the specific case of the respondents/landlords that the father of the petitioner was originally a tenant under the respondents and that he had sublet the premises to two sub-tenants against whom also eviction proceedings had been initiated and the respondents also succeeded in obtaining an order of eviction in the said proceedings. As rightly contended by Mr.K.P.Ashok, the learned counsel for the respondents, Section 2(8) defining who a tenant is and to include persons associated with the business to be tenants after the demise of the tenants cannot be pressed into service in the instant case, because the father of the petitioner himself had divested himself from possession of the petitioner's premises by subletting the tenanted premises to two sub- tenants. Therefore, when the petitioner's father himself was not occupying the tenanted premises and carrying on any business, there is no question of anybody else, muchless legal heirs being associated with carrying on business with the original tenant. 23. Both the petitioner and his brother have not even specifically denied the averment made by the respondents that their father Jayaraj is the tenant under respondents paying monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- and that he had sublet the premises to two sub tenants without the written consent of the respondents/landlords. As already discussed and being handicapped by absence of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties before the Rent Controller in the eviction proceedings, I am unable to ascertain whether any findings has been given to with regard to existence of landlord tenant relationship. However admittedly, the respondents have succeeded in the eviction proceedings and had also taken possession of the tenanted premises. Therefore, in view of my finding that the definition of tenant under Section 2(8) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, especially when there is an allegation of subletting and the same has also been accepted by Rent Controller in parallel proceedings, it cannot be said here that the duty is primarily on the respondents/landlords to establish jural relationship in the present proceedings as well. 24. 24. In the light of the pleadings and defence taken by the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller and also in the light of the parallel eviction proceedings, admittedly where possession has been taken from the sub tenants, I am of the view that the revision petitioner cannot take shelter under the definition of tenant under Section 2(8) and state that he was not associated with the business of the father and therefore, he cannot be termed as a tenant and proceeded against in a petition for fixation of fair rent. 25. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar's (referred herein supra) assume significance. Under Section 27 of the Act, any proceedings that are taken the tenant originally can be proceeded against the legal heirs and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the respondents/landlords filing the fair rent petition against the sons of deceased tenant, D.Jeyaraj. 26. Both the grounds of willful default as well as subletting are grounds available to landlord to seek eviction as a punitive measure for a wrong or omission committed by the tenant, unlike provisions of Sections 10(3) and 14, where eviction is sought for on the ground of bonafide own use by the landlord. Therefore, in a case of subletting and willful default, as in the present case, the tenant who has committed a wrong, cannot take advantage of the definition of tenant under Section 2(8) and contend that despite having not paid rents and also unauthorisedly sublet the premises, such tenant would not come within the purview of the provisions of the Rent Control Act. 27. I am in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that as legal heirs and the sons of the deceased tenant, the revision petitioner and his brother are statutorily liable for payment of rents and also handing over the possession to the landlords. 28. Moreover, the petitioner has also not entered witness box and adduced evidence to establish the contentions taken in the counter statement, leave alone, not choosing to cross examine P.W.1, Engineer examined on the side of the respondents/land lords. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I hold that the RCOP for fixation of fair rent against the petitioner is very well maintainable. 29. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I hold that the RCOP for fixation of fair rent against the petitioner is very well maintainable. 29. Coming to the contention that being a public Trust, the landlords were not entitled to approach the Rent Controller Court, the law is well settled in this regard. In Sha Poosaji Mangilal's case (referred herein supra), it has been clearly held that the exemption granted by the Government can be waived by a Public Charitable Trust and the Trust can opt to come within the purview of the Rent Control Act. In such circumstances, even on this ground there is no infirmity or illegality in a Public Charitable Trust invoking Section 4 of the Rent Control Act and seeking fixation of fair rent. 30. With regard to the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, I have gone through the records, including evidence of P.W.1 which was not even tested in the cross examination and both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have rightly applied the relevant factors and formula prescribed under Section 4 of the Act, I do not find any justifiable grounds or reasons to interfere with the fair rent arrived at by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 31. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However there is no order as to costs.