Lower authorities have rendered well considered and merited decisions.

These two revisions are filed against the order dated 28.08.1996 in R.C.A.No.3 of 1993 and 2 of 1993 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri), against the orders passed in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1990 and 9 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Hosur).

2. The averments in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 are that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop belonging to the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-; that the respondent having received the rent promptly up to July 1998, issued receipts therefor; that thereafter, the respondent did not receive the rent at all; that he did not issue receipt for the payments made for three months; that the respondent did not respond to the petitioner's request to name the bank in which he could deposit the rent; that the petitioner had paid Rs.5,000/- as advance; that on 18.4.1990, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner sent a reply on 16.5.1990 with a Cheque for Rs.6,300/- on Central Bank; that the said reply with Cheque had been returned by the respondent's advocate and that therefore, the petitioner has filed these petitions for deposit of the rent into Court under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act .

3. In his counter, the respondent has stated that it is not true that the petitioner had been a tenant for 12 years and he was paying the rent promptly; that the petitioner did not pay the rent from April 1998 i.e. a sum of Rs.7,800/-; that these respondents maintain a receipt book and the petitioner had signed therein for payment of rent; that the petitioner did not take steps as enunciated under the Rent Control Act that R.C.O.P.11 of 1990 filed by these respondents is pending; that it is not true that the petitioner had paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance; that the allegations that the reply by petitioner together with cheque was returned by the respondent was not true and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1990 has been filed by the owner of shop against the tenant on the allegations that the tenant did not pay rent from April 1998 in a sum of Rs.7,800/-; that the landlord has always been issuing receipts for the payment of rent; that the landlord wants to start a grocery shop of his own in the shop in question; that the tenant has started a business for which it was not let out; that the tenant has a shop of his own in the bus stand which has been rented out by him to a third party; that to the notice issued by the tenant a suitable reply had been sent and that therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted.

5. The tenant in his counter has raised similar allegations as had been raised by him in his petition in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 and further contending that the demand by the landlord on his own business purposes is not true and that therefore the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court on consideration of the materials, allowed R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 and dismissed R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1990. Aggrieved by that the landlord filed R.C.A.Nos.3 and 2 of 1993 and the appellate authority on re-appreciation of the evidence dismissed both the appeals with costs. Hence, these revisions.

7. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners besides bringing out the facts of the case as pleaded by parties below would bring out the salient features stating that the rent was Rs.300/- and the petition filed by the landlord was for eviction on grounds of wilful default in payment of the rent by the respondent/tenant and requirement of the premises for personal use and occupation of the landlord; that the original landlord Krishnamurthy died and the L.Rs. impleaded to the proceedings; that on 6.4.1988 was the last rent paid and thereafter for 26 months at a stretch there was no payment of rent at all; that a lawyer's notice was sent for which a reply was sent along with a cheque for Rs.6,300/- as the rent for 20