Appellate Authority should pass speaking order in the appeals preferred.

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.14 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai dated 31.7.2000 confirming the Order and decree passed in R.C.O.P.No.389 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Madurai Town, dated 10.12.1991.

2. The tenant, who is the revision petitioner, being occupied a front room of Door Nos.233, and 233 b, wherein the respondents, who are owners of the said door numbers are residing, for rent, to run Ayurvedic clinic, at Rs.130/- per moth, thereafter, the same was increased to Rs.200/- per month. The petitioner was not proper in paying the rent. On 11.5.1985 the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.400/- and thereafter, he did not make any payment. On the date of filing the petition, he was of the balance of Rs.2540/-. After the receipt of the notice dated 20.6.1985, he paid Rs.300/-, however, he has to pay Rs.2240/-. Since, the space for the pathway is not enough for the respondents and their family members, they decided to convert the room let out to the petitioner into a pathway and the same was informed to the petitioner, but he did not respond to their request, and therefore, the respondents issued a notice on 20.6.1985, even for which no reply has been given. Hence, the respondents filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Madurai, who framed the following two issues.

a. Whether the respondent/tenant has committed any wilful default in paying the rent?

b. Whether petition-building is required for the own use of the landlords ?

3. On considering the evidence and the materials on record, the rent controller, decided the issues in favour of the respondents herein and allowed the petition by ordering eviction. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai, who, by his order, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has come forward with this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the Rent Controller had not decided the matter in a proper perspective, the appellate authority also simply confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority is not sustainable under law and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the respondents have adduced satisfactory evidence to prove the wilful default committed by the petitioner in paying the rent and the bonafide requirement of the building being occupied by the petitioner and also on the basis of the materials placed before the Rent Controller in support their claim, the Rent Controller arrived at a right conclusion and decided the matter in a proper perspective and therefore, the revision has to be dismissed. Further, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention.

7. In S. SUNDARAM PILLAI ETC., VS. V. R. PATTABIRAMAN (AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 582), the Suprme Court held as follows:

"As we read the explanation, it does not at all take away the mandatory duty cast on the Controller in the proviso to decide if a default is wilful or not. Indeed, if the landlord chooses to give two months' notice to his tenant and he does not pay the rent, then, in the absence of substantial and compelling reasons, the controller or the court can certainly presume that the default is wilful and order his eviction straightaway. We are unable to accept the view that whether two months' notice for payment of rent is given or not, it will always be open to the controller under the proviso to determine the question of wilful default because that would render the very object of Explanation otiose and nugatory. We express our view in the matter in the following terms:

(1) Where no notice is given by the landlord in terms of