.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Arani and the appellant in R.C.A.No.9 of 1991 on the file of the appellate authority (Sub-Court) Arani. The respondent is the petitioner before the Rent Controller and the respondent before the appellate authority. She is the landlady. Though eviction was sought for on three grounds namely, wilful default in the payment of rent; putting the building to a different user and committing an act of waste, yet the order of eviction came to be passed only on two grounds namely different user and act of waste. That order of the Rent Controller was sustained by the appellate authority on both the grounds. Hence the present revision.

.2. I heard Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. S. Francis Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to the learned senior counsel, the order of eviction passed in this case suffers from illegalities and therefore it cannot be sustained. The learned senior counsel would also argue that the purpose of tenancy is for non-residential purposes and no material whatsoever has bee