The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.58 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthagamandalam and the appellant in R.C.A.No.39 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority (District Judge) Uthagamandalam. The respondent is the petitioner/ landlord in the proceedings before the Rent Control Court and the respondent before the Appellate Authority. The tenant suffered an order of eviction on two grounds namely, wilful default in the payment of rent as well as on the ground, of additional accommodation, rendered by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The correctness of the orders referred to above are questioned in this revision.

2. The agreed rent is Rs.230 p.m. from January, 1987 till January, 1988 the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent. The landlord issued a notice dated 14.12.1987, through his lawyer demanding the arrears of rent upto that date as well as for the vacant possession of the premises. The tenant sent a reply enclosing a cheque, for a sum of Rs.2,990 for the period commencing from 1.1.1987 to 31.1.1988, both months inclusive. Again the tenant had not paid the rent from