Petitioner Thangavelu seeks to revise the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority in HRA. No. 342 of 1967 on its file, confirming the order of the Rent Controller in HRC. No. 4828 of 1966 on his file, directing the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from 1st May, 1966 to 30th September, 1966 at the rate of one rupee per day. The petitioner denied the title of the respondent. His case is that the respondent put up the northern superstructure and he put up the southern half of the superstructure of the premises in question and that he has let out three rooms with thatched roofing behind the southern half portion. But the case of the respondent was that he put up the entire superstructure of the premises at his cost and that he has let out the premises occupied by the petitioner for running a Tea shop. Each party examined five witnesses in support of his case, apart from adducing documentary evidence. The Courts below accepted the case of the respondent that the petitioner is his tenant and in doing so they relied among other things, on the notice (Exhibit P-2) sent by the petitioner through his advocate admitting that he