One ground cited by landlord goes against him but not challenged.

The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3335 ofl986 in the file of the 11th Small Causes Judge (Rent Controller), Madras and the respondent in R.C.A.No.5 of 1990 on the file of the 8th Small Causes Judge (Appellate Authority), Madras. The respondents 1 and 2 are the petitioners in the rent control proceedings (landladies) and the appellants before the appellate authority. In this order, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the landladies and the tenant respectively.

2. I heard Mr.N.Krishna Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and though the respondents had been served, yet they have not chosen either to engage a counsel to defend then here-or they were present before court. Under the these circumstances, this revision is disposed of on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and after perusing the records.

3. The landladies filed an application for eviction against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and for owner’s occupation (residential purpose). Before the Rent Controller, the first landlady examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-12 were marked. The tenant examined herself as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked. The Rent Controller on going through the materials placed before him found that the landladies have not made out their case at all on both the grounds and thus, rejected the rent control petition. The landladies filed an appeal on both the grounds before the appellate authority. The appellate authority found that the landladies are entitled to an order of eviction only on the ground of owner’s occupation and thus, rejecting the petition on the ground of wilful default, ordered eviction on the ground of owner’s occupation alone. The correctness of which is being question in this revision by the tenant.

4. The rent control petition relates to the non-payment of rent from April, 1986 to September, 1986, both months inclusive. As far as the owner’s occupation is concerned, the case of the first landlady is that they are residing in a rented flat at Mandaveli, Chennai and therefore they are in need of the tenanted premises in the occupation of the tenant for their own residential purposes. Incidentally, it is also stated in the rent control petition that besides the first landlady, their relatives as well as her mother is also living with her. The tenancy as per the allegation in the rent control petition is for residential purposes. In the counter statement, the tenant took the stand that there is no wilful default at all in the payment of rent. It is stated in this context as follows:

“That rents have not been paid for April, May, June and July, 1986 as a deliberate falsehood. On the other hand there is no question of this respondent not paying the rent for April and it is only from May onwards rents which were sent have been detained and sent over in September, 1986 and thereafter by reason of the claim made by a person the rents have not been paid as there was no occasion to recognise the claims of the petitioner in the wake of objection that had been raised. This is no legal basis for the plea of default much less wilful as indicated. This respondent is ready and willing to deposit the rents into court provided the same is withdrawn by a proper and competent person after satisfaction of title.”

5. As far as the requirement of the owner’s occupation is concerned, it is stated by the tenant in the counter that the second landlady is living in America and she had acquired that country’s citizenship. She had no idea of returning to India. The first landlady had also decided to go to America and live with her daughter. Therefore the requirement of owner’s occupation is baseless. The claim that the first landlady’s relatives are residing with her cannot be taken into account to conclude that they constitute a family and therefore that ground cannot be pu