M.V. Muralidaran ORDER
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order made in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2003, reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 13 of 1994, the petitioners, who are trustees of Sri Mouna Swamigal Madam, also known as Manickavasa Swamigal Trust have preferred this revision. Pending revision, sole respondent died. His legal heirs were brought on record as respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in this revision. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in the main RCOP.
2. Since it is a reversal order, brief facts and events are to be narrated. The case of the petitioners is that the petition mentioned premises and the abutting area in S.F. No. 473 measuring an extent of 26,676 square feet belongs to Manivakavasaga Swamigal Trust, which was also called as Mounaswamigal Madam, a private trust and the petitioners are trustees. The trust was created as per deed dated 17.12.1921. The present trustees were appointed by their father as per deed dated 03.07.1978. The trustees present and past have constructed building in the property and let the same to tenants and collected rents.
3. In the year 1987, the respondent approached petitioners and asked the petition mentioned premises for rent. Accordingly, on oral agreement, the petitioners have given the petition mentioned premises to the sole respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 165. Thereafter, the sole respondent was living in the petition mentioned premises and was doing hayrick business. The respondent paid rent upto December 1991 and thereafter, committed default in payment of rent. Despite request made by the petitioners, the respondent has not paid the rent.
4. On 29.06.1992, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent, which was replied by the respondent. It is averred that when the respondent was trying to get the electricity connection by mentioning wrong door number as 19/1, the petitioners objected the same. The petitioners have also filed O.S. No. 437 of 1993 before the learned District Munsif Court, Chidambaram against the Electricity Board and the respondent, not to grant electricity connection to the respondent. The said suit was decreed ex parte. On 15.06.1994, the petitioners once again issued notice to the respondent, which was also replied by the respondent and in the reply notice, the respondent denied the petitioners right over the petition mentioned premises.
5. The case of the petitioners is that though the respondent denied the rights of the petitioners over the petition mentioned property, he is liable to be evicted from the petition mentioned premises on the ground of willful default committed by him. According to the petitioners, since the petition mentioned premises is in dilapidated condition, it requires demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the petitioners have filed petition seeking eviction of the sole respondent under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii) and 14(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").
6. The sole respondent opposed the main petition by stating that the averments set out in the petition are false and the same are denied. The premises in which the respondent is residing was constructed by him on his own costs. It is stated that the trust or the trustees have no right over the petition mentioned premises. It is the case of the respondent that based on the fraudulent trust deed, the petitioners have filed this petition. For about 20 years, the respondent was living in the petition mentioned premises without paying any rent to anybody. He was not a tenant under the petitioners. According to the respondent, the petitioners are in the habit ........