K. Shanmukham, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner. His landlady, the respondent herein came forward with H.R.C. 4135 of 1920 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes Madras seeking the petitioner's eviction under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(v) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Rent Controller accepted the grounds of wilful default and nuisance and therefore directed eviction of the petitioner. On the petitioner's appeal, H.R.A. 798 of 1981, on the file of the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the Appellate Authority some what differed from the learned Rent Controller and held that the tenant was guilty of wilful default and that the tenant was not liable to be evicted on the complaint of nuisance, while it confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller regarding the landlord's case for additional accommodation. In view of its finding on the ground of wilful default, the appellate authority also ordered eviction of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the finding of the learned Appellate Authority regarding wilful default. Finding that there is