COMMON ORDER These civil revision petitions have been filed by the landlord challenging the concurrent dismissal of rent control petitions for eviction on the ground of willful default. (A)Factual Matrix: 2.According to the petitioner averments, the petitioner society was initially registered in the year 1981 with Registration No.33 of 1981. The said society owned the petition mentioned property and the tenants were inducted by the society into the property in the year 1998. Since the society have become defunct, the registration got lapsed. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the Society was registered afresh in the year 2003 on 13.01.2003 vide Registration No.5 of 2003. The office bearers of the new society demanded rent from the tenants. Since there was default, a legal notice was issued to them on 06.02.2003. Even thereafter the tenant did not pay the rent. They also disputed the landlord tenant relationship, Hence, RCOP.Nos.17 of 2003, 4 of 2004 and RCOP.Nos.14, 17 to 21 of 2003 and 4 of 2004 were filed before the Rent Controller, Aruppukkottai for evicting the tenant on the ground of willful default. 4.The Rent Controller without properly appreciating the documents filed on the side of the Society, arrived at a finding that the denial of title is bonafide and proceeded to dismiss the eviction petitions. Challenging the same, RCA Nos. 1 to 7 of 2019 were filed before the Subordinate Court, Aruppukkottai. 5.Pending appeal, this Court in CRP(MD).No.1788 of 2009 dated 18.06.2019 had upheld the title of the society. The said order was filed as an additional document before the appellate Court. The appellate Court had dismissed the additional evidence application and proceeded to confirm the dismissal of eviction petitions. Challenging the same, the present revision petitions have been filed. (B)Submission of counsels appearing on either side: 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the tenants were inducted in the petition mentioned premises in the year 1988 by erstwhile sangam. The tenant do not claim any title to the property. They only set up title upon the erstwhile sangam. Since the sangam has become defunct, a new society was registered and automatically, the new society became the landlord. Despite legal notice, the tenants have refused to pay rent. In such circumstances, the denial of title is not bonafide and the tenants having admittedly committed willful default, the Courts below ought to have ordered eviction. Since the sangam has become defunct, a new society was registered and automatically, the new society became the landlord. Despite legal notice, the tenants have refused to pay rent. In such circumstances, the denial of title is not bonafide and the tenants having admittedly committed willful default, the Courts below ought to have ordered eviction. 7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the buildings are owned by Aruppukottai Puliampatti Maninagaram Vaniga Vaisiya Vaniar Community. The building were constructed by the said community and let out to various tenants. The affairs of the said community are managed by Ambalam and Kariyakar who hold the office by hereditary succession. Therefore, the community alone continues to be the owner of the premises. The said community has not transferred their right in the property to the newly formed trust. The tenants are regularly paying rent to the Amabalam and Kariyakar and there is no willful default. 8.The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that the trust deed or the byelaws of the society do not reflect that the petition mentioned properties are owned by the society. There is no record whatsoever to show that the new society is the landlord. The community which constructed the building has not transferred its right to newly formed society. An attempt that was made by the present society to include the petition mentioned petition in their byelaws but the same was rejected by the authority. Therefore, there is a bonafide dispute with regard to the title of the building. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek eviction. 9.The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that the judgment in CRP(MD).No.1788 of 2009 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The said judgement was delivered in the light of the fact that the tenant had failed to establish that the community continues to be the owner of the petition mentioned premises. On the other hand, in the present case, the tenants have filed documents to establish that the community continues to be the owner of the building. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions. 10.Heard both sides and perused the material records. (C)Discussion: 11.It is the specific case of the petitioner's society that the building was constructed by erstwhile sangam having Registration No.33 of 1981 and the tenants were inducted in the year 1998. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions. 10.Heard both sides and perused the material records. (C)Discussion: 11.It is the specific case of the petitioner's society that the building was constructed by erstwhile sangam having Registration No.33 of 1981 and the tenants were inducted in the year 1998. Admittedly, the petitioner society has been formed only in the year 2003. Therefore, the entire burden is upon the petitioner society to establish the fact that the property belonging to the previous society was transferred in favour of the present society so as to create a landlord tenant relationship. 12.There is no dispute that the petition mentioned building was owned by a society by name Aruppukottai Puliampatti Maninagaram Vaniga Vaisiya Vaniar Community with Registration No.33 of 1981. The present society has been registered on 13.01.2003 in Registration No.5 of 2003. Exhibit R1, is the byelaws of the society registered in the year 2003. The said byelaws does not reflect that any property is owned by the society. Exhibit X15 is the proceedings of District Registrar, Virudhunagar dated 14.09.2017. It is an order passed by the registrar rejecting Form-VII of the petitioner society. The society has passed a resolution on 25.09.2014 to include six properties as society properties which were owned by the defunct society. This resolution was rejected by the authority on the ground that as regard as properties of the defunct society, only the said society can take a decision. Based upon the above said observations, the request of the petitioner's society for accepting Form VII was rejected. 13.The President of the petitioner society was examined as PW1. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the petitioner Society has not mentioned about the petition mentioned property in their byelaw. He further admits that though the society contends that the petition mentioned property belong to them, they have not stated through which document it belongs to them. He further admits that there are no records to show that the rent was collected by the present society from the tenants. It is also admitted during cross examination that the buildings were constructed in the year 1987 and the society was registered in the year 2003. He had further admitted that they have not filed even a single property tax receipt for any one of the shops. 14.The Secretary of the Society was examined as PW2. It is also admitted during cross examination that the buildings were constructed in the year 1987 and the society was registered in the year 2003. He had further admitted that they have not filed even a single property tax receipt for any one of the shops. 14.The Secretary of the Society was examined as PW2. He also admits that the property tax receipt continues to be in the name of the trust ' Vaniyar Podhu' and they have not been mutated in the name of the new society. In view of Exhibit X1 byelaw, Exhibit X15-proceedings of the Virudhunagar District Registrar and the deposition of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that the petitioner society has not filed any documents whatsoever to establish the fact that the petition mentioned properties are owned by them. On the other hand, the tenants have established the fact that they are tenants under the old sangam and the old sangam has not transferred the property in the name of the new society. 15.The revision petitioner has filed CMP(MD).Nos. 2038, 2039, 2040, 2044, 2072, 2073 and 2076 of 2021 to receive the order in CRP(MD).No.1788 of 2009 as an additional evidence. According to petitioner, in the said order, it has been upheld that the petitioner society is a landlord of the petition mentioned building. 16.A perusal of the said order reveals that the revision petition filed by a tenant came to be dismissed on the ground that he had set up title in a different society, but failed to establish his case regarding existence of a rival society. However, in the present case, Exhibit X1 and X15 and deposition of PW1 and PW2 will clearly establish that there is a rival society which has not transferred the properties in the name of the new society. In such circumstances, the order in CRP(MD).No.1788 of 2009 will not support case of the revision petitioner. 17.The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have considered the evidence in detail and have proceeded to arrive at a finding that the petitioner society has not established its right over the petition mentioned property. In such circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the authority, especially in the light of the facts narrated above. 18.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the revision petitions. In such circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the authority, especially in the light of the facts narrated above. 18.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the revision petitions. Accordingly, all the revision petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.