This order shall govern these two revisions in CRP Nos.306 of 2002 and 42 of 2004.

2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not appeared.

3. From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and also the materials available, it is quite evident that the respondent filed a petition in RCOP No.390/94 for eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of willful default alleging that the revision petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises which belonged to the respondent-landlady, on a monthly rental of Rs.200/- for non-residential purposes; that from June 1993 to December 1993, there were rental arrears; that under the circumstances, the tenant committed willful default, and hence, he was to be evicted.

4. The petition was resisted strongly by the tenant stating that there was no default, much less willful default.

.5. On enquiry, the petition was ordered by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved, the tenant took it on appeal in RCA No.1518 of 1996. On enquiry, the Rent Control Appellate Authority namely the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirmed the order of eviction on