Respondent was served through Court. There is no representation on his behalf. Heard Mr. K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner - tenant.

2. This revision petition hasbeen filed against the order in R.C.A.No.l of 1990 dated 4. 1991 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal (Sub Court), Nagapattinam, reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1986 dated 310. 1989, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Nagapattinam.

3. Respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1986 on the only ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The petitioner herein is the tenant of a non-residential premises let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs.50. The landlord -respondent herein alleged that the petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of rent from January, 1985 to December, 1985, to the tune of Rs.600 for 12 months. The petitioner - tenant contested the petition on the ground that the landlord used to collect the rent through his agent once in four months or six months, that the agent of the landlord used to come to him whenever he decided and that such visits would not be regular, but would be irregular and random. According to the petiti