The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of presenting credible evidence to support claims in eviction cases, particularly regarding the determination of actual rent, wilful default, and the genuineness of intentions for demolition, reconstruction, and occupation for business purposes.

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and concurrent orders rejecting the prayer of the tenant to deposit the rent into Court.

2. Learned Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the respondents.

.3. The respondents filed R.C.O.P.No.21 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Controller, Erode against the petitioner herein seeking eviction on the grounds of wilful default, owners occupation and demolition and reconstruction. Simultaneously, the petitioner herein filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 1997 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, seeking permission to deposit the rents into Court. By a common order dated 7. 2004, the Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction and dismissed the petition filed by the tenant for deposit of rent into Court.

4. The petitioner filed two appeals in R.C.A.Nos.5 of 2004 and 5 of 2005 against the common order passed in both the petitions. But the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals by a common order dated 22. 2006. It is against these orders that the petitioner has come up with the present Civil Revision Petitions.

5. At the outset, it is contended on behalf of the tenants that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents with regard to the monthly rent payable. According to the petitioner, the monthly rent was only Rs.2,000/-. However, according to the respondents, the monthly rent was Rs.3,250/-. In order to show that the monthly rent was only Rs.2,000/-, the petitioner filed the ledgers maintained in the course of his business, from the year 1995-1996 upto the year 2001-2002, as Exhibits R-21 to R-34. Drawing my attention to these exhibits, Mr. P. Velliappan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the accounts books or ledgers maintained in the course of the business of the petitioner were filed before the Court below and their authenticity was not disputed, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ought not to have given a finding that the rent was Rs.3,250/-.

.6. However, it is seen that, the respondents also filed the receipt books containing the counterfoils for the period from 1. 1988 to 9. 1991 as Exhibit P-6. Similarly, the respondents also filed the receipt book containing the counterfoil relating to the rents for the period from December 1989 to January 1993, as Exhibit P-7. Exhibit P-5 was similar rental receipt book for the period from 1993 to 1997. On the basis of the oral evidence let in by the respondents and the above exhibits, after taking into account the ledger accounts filed by the petitioner, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the actual rent was Rs.3,250/- per month. As a matter of fact, the Courts below came to the conclusion that there was a periodical increase in the monthly rent, from time-to-time. The courts below noted that the rent was Rs.1,700/-, during the period 1989 to 1991; it was Rs.1,800/- during the period 1991 and 1992 and it was Rs.2,000/- from 1982 to 1993. Ultimately, the rent was finally increased to Rs.3,250/- from 1996 onwards. It is on account, of such a cogent presentation that the Courts below came to the conclusion that the rent was Rs.3,250/- per month. Once such a conclusion is found to have been reached by two Courts below without any perversity of approach on their part, this Court will not interfere with the finding in a revision. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he was only paying Rs.2,000/- per month and not Rs.3,250/- per month. Therefore, in the light of the finding that the monthly rent was Rs.3,250/- per month, it follows that there was wilful default on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority for holding the petitioner guilty of wilful default in payment of monthly re