These revisions filed by the tenant are directed against the orders of the District Judge, Tirunelveli in M. C. Nos. 13 and 14 of 1968 setting aside the order of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti in E.P. Nos. 423 and 424 of 1967 holding that the petitioner had not committed wilful default in payment of the rents and as such they are not liable to be evicted from the leasehold premises. The facts which gave rise to the above proceedings are as follows:

2. The respondent who is the same in both the revisions filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 40 of 1964 and 1 of 1965 against the petitioner in both the revisions on the ground that he had committed wilful default in payment of the rents. When the eviction petitions came up for hearing the petitioner and the respondent entered into a compromise and filed a compromise memo, and in pursuance of the compromise memo, the Rent Controller by his order, dated 16th March, 1965, after recording the fact that the earlier arrears of rent had been paid, directed that the tenant should pay the rent due from March, 1965 at Rs. 20 per mensem and Rs. 35 per mensem for the two premises respectively on or before the third, of the succeeding month by money order an