5.This Court perused the documents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon several documents. The demand notice for property tax is issued in the name of Valli Nayagam Pillai by the commissioner of Nagercoil Municipality. The landlords have produced several documents namely, the demand notice, assessment orders and the proceedings initiated by the Local body for collection of property tax for the building. From the nature of documents filed by the landlords, it is seen that the document contain the door number, whereas in none of the documents produced by the tenant, the assessment number or the door number is properly given. In this case, the landlords have produced the documents Ex A1 namely, the rental agreement between the landlord and the 4th respondent. Though this document is unregistered, the same was impounded and ultimately after collecting stamp duty and penalty, the document was permitted to be marked. Since the document was held to be proved, the trial Court proceed further to find out whether the revision petitioner has established his case by any other document. After elaborately considering the documents and the materials produced before the Courts below, the courts below have taken a view that the revision petitioner has not proved his title where as the landlords have proved the lease taken by fourth respondent. Eviction was ordered on the ground of wilful default and subletting. The authorities below specifically found that the denial of title is not bonafide.
