1. The tenant, who failed concurrently before the Courts below, in resisting the Rent Control Original Petition in 5 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, is the revision petitioner.

2. The respondent/landlord, as petitioner, has moved, the Rent Controller for the eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner) on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, that the tenant had damaged the building, causing acts of waste and that the building is required for the personal occupation of his son, invoking the provisions of Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) though the Secti ons were not so quoted, as seen from the Rent Control Original Petition.

3. The revision petitioner, denying all the allegations in the Rent Control Original Petition, has opposed the application, that the landlord claiming daily rent at the rate of Rs.100, refused to receive the rent, as agreed, and only for the purpose of evicting the tenant, without any bona fide, the grounds are alleged for the eviction, which deserve non-acceptance.

4. The Re