Tenant must pay rent regularly without expecting any demand.

The petitioners are landlords and the respondents are the tenants in this revision.

2. The landlords filed a petition for eviction of the tenants from the premises 89-A, Vadakkuradha Veedhi, Dindigul on two grounds: (i) Wilful default in payment of rent, and (ii) Building is required for additional accommodation to run the business.

3. After enquiry, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction upholding both the grounds.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenants have filed an appeal challenging the order of eviction before the appellate authority. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the appellate authority set aside the order of eviction holding that the landlords are not

entitled to ask for eviction. As against that order in appeal, the landlords, petitioners herein, have filed this revision before this Court.

5. During the enquiry before the Rent Controller, on the side of landlords, P.W.1 Alagesan was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked. On the side of tenants, R.W.1 Sankaran was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-5 were marked.

6. The case projected by the landlords through the materials placed before the Rent Controller is as follows:

“There are four shops 89, 89-A, 89-B and 89-C owned by landlords. All are situated in the same place adjacently. One Amirthalingam Asari entered into a Rental Agreement with the father of the petitioners, the landlords, to have the premises of 89-A. Two years ago, Amirthalingam Asari died. So, the present tenants being his legal heirs, agreed to pay Rs.160 per month from November, 1986 to the present landlords. The shop at the eastern side i.e., next to 89-A was occupied by the landlords having the cycle hiring and repairing shop. Since the rents were not paid from January, 1987 to June, 1987 i.e., for six months, the landlords sent a notice demanding the amount of Rs.960 towards six months rental arrears and asking to vacate the premises since it was required for additional accommodation. Only on receipt of notice, the tenants paid Rs.800 rent amount for five months, instead of Rs.960 the rental arrears for six months. Therefore, another notice was sent by the landlords to the tenants asking to pay the rent for month of June, 1987. Neither reply nor money was sent. Then, several notices were sent by the landlords. Despite the services of notices, no reply was sent by the tenants. Cycle business of the landlords has considerably improved and they require the premises for additional accommodation.”

7. The case of the tenants, as projected through the materials produced by them, could be narrated as follows:

“The tenants father was doing gunny bag business for 35 years. Initially, the rent was fixed at Rs.15 and from November, 1986, the rent was enhanced to Rs.160. Landlords demanded the increased rent of Rs.200 from January, 1987, That was not agreed by the tenants. When Rs.160 was given in the month of February towards the rent for January, the landlords refused to receive the same. When the tenants received a notice in July, 1987, they sent Rs.800 towards the rental arrears. However, after filing of the petition, in the first hearing, the entire rent was paid. The landlords have got several shops. Since the increased rent was refused to be paid, the petition has been filed mala fide. The landlords are having their cycle shop only for the past two years.”

8. After scrutiny of the materials, the Rent Controller held that the tenants have committed wilful default in paying the rent in respect of the month of June, 1987 and that the requirement for additional accommodation of the landlords was bona fide. However, this order was set aside by the appellate authority holding that the landlords failed to prove both these grounds.

9. Mr.Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the landlords, would contend that the well considered order of the Rent Controller has been set aside by the appellate authority on the reasonings which are manifestly erroneou