Landlord has admitted that his other premises are also vacant.

1.The landlord is the petitioner in RCOP.No.1/1992, before the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, and the said Petition was filed under Section 10(2)(i) and 10 (3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1968, for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and the petitioner requires the premises for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and in this case to run a shop for his son. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction only on the ground of owner's occupation and rejected the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The tenant preferred an appeal in RCA.No.31/1994, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Madurai and the said appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has preferred this civil revision petition.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the petition premises and the respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.125/- and the said rent is payable on or before 5th of every Tamil Calendar Month. The tenant is always irregular in payment of rent and he paid rents upto the month of Karthigai, Pramathootha year and afterwards failed to pay the rents and he was in arrears for 13 months from Pramathootha year, Margazhi month upto Prajyathpathy Margazhi month. The non-payment of rent by the respondent is wilful and wanton. Further case of the petitioner is that his son is working in a grocery shop at Madurai and he requires the premises for the purpose of opening a grocery shop for his son. The requirement of the petitioner is bonafide and the request made by the petitioner was not complied with and hence, the petition.

3.In the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that the tenancy is not according to the Tamil Calendar Month, but, it is only according to the English Calendar Month. The tenancy commences from 23rd of every English Calendar Month and ends with 22nd of succeeding month. The monthly rent is Rs.55/-, excluding electricity charges and the tenant has been paying Rs.15/- per month towards electricity charges. The petitioner is not in the habit of issuing receipts for the payment of rent, but, he has always been regular in payment of rent and he has not at all committed default. The respondent paid rents upto 22nd December 1991 and he was not at all in arrears. The requirement of the petition premises for the petitioner's son to run a grocery shop is not admitted. The petitioner does not at all require the petition premises for his son and the said requirement is not at all bonafide. The respondent also further stated that he came to the petitioner's premises about 17 years back and the initial rent was Rs.15/- per month and he gave an advance of Rs.300/- and the rent was increased subsequently and there was an increase in the advance amount also and the rent paid last was Rs.55/- and there was an advance of Rs.2,600/- with the petitioner.

4.It is further stated that the petitioner borrowed Rs.8,000/- from one Rajendran by executing a registered mortgage deed on 22.2.1988 in respect of adjacent portion, bearing door no.202. The petitioner also borrowed Rs.8,000/- from R. Rajendran, by executing an unregistered mortgage deed in respect of an another adjacent portion, bearing door no.202. The petitioner is financially weak and hence, he cannot start any business. When the respondent insisted the payment of the amount spent by him for repairs, instead of paying the amount, the petitioner became inimical and has filed the petition.

5.Heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent.

6.The Rent Controller has allowed the petition only on the ground of owner's occupation and rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default and the landlord has not preferred any appeal as against the said order. But, however, the tenant preferred an appeal and the said appeal was allowed.

7.It is contended on behalf o