1. The revision petitioner in each of the petitions is the landlord in R.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 1988 respectively on the file of the Rent Controller, Manapparai. The respondents in both the revisions are the respective respondents in those proceedings, In R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1988 there was only one tenant and on account of his death, his legal representatives have come to be brought on record. Eviction was sought for in both the cases on two grounds, viz., wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds. On appeal by the respective tenants. the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller in both the cases. Hence, these two revisions.

2. I heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in each case and Mr.D.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in each case. The pleading in the first rent control case, on the material aspects is as follows:

The tenancy is for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.40.00. The tenancy is oral and receipts are being issued for collection of the rent by the petitioner and at his