the title but also the tenancy. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the landlord to prove tenancy and to prove that the denial of title by Manickam was not bona fide. If the tenancy is not proved then the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority cannot or need not go into the question of denial of title. Taking me through the discussion by the Authorities constituted under the Act, Mr.P.Valliappan would contend that both the Authorities have not approached the case in the right perspective and they had gone on to decide the question of denial of title without deciding, as to whether, there was a valid tenancy or not. Making a distinction between a denial of tenancy and denial of title, Mr.P.Valliappan, would contend that the existence of tenancy is a prerequisite. He would also add that even a person without title can be a landlord in view of the wide definition of landlord under Section 2(6) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, but unless the tenancy is proved the Act will not apply. Therefore, according to the learned counsel both the Authorities overlooked a very vital requirement and therefore, their findings have to be interfered with.
