The court's interpretation of S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and its holding that the landlord's requirement for own use was bona fide, as he had no other building within the municipality where the suit premises was situated and wanted to use it for his goldsmith business.

1. The tenant against whom an order of eviction was passed in the trial court and which was confirmed before the lower appellate court in R.C.A. 29 of 1991, has come forward with this revision petition.

2. Short facts are:— The respondent/landlord has filed the petition for eviction on the ground of requirement for non-residential purposes and on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. That was opposed by the tenant/revision petitioner herein. In the additional counter, a plea is raised that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On that, the trial court had taken up that contention also into consideration and had framed a point whether the denial of the petitioners claim is bona fide or not. The trial court had held that there was wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and there was denial of title which was not bona fide, but rejected the petitioners claim of requirement for own use and for non-residential purposes. On appeal by the tenant, the appellate authority had held that there was wilful default in payment of rent, on a finding that there was arrears of rent for the period from May 1988 to July, 1988 and it was wilful. Contrary to the finding of the trial Court, the appellate authority had found that the requirement for own use for nonresidential purr poses was bona fide. Regarding the question of denial of title, the lower appellate court had not differed from the finding of the trial court. Thus the Appellate Authority had also come to the conclusion that the landlord/petitioner in the trial court is entitled to get an order of eviction and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant/respondent in the trial court has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.

3. I have heard Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner and also Mr. Peppin Fernando, learned counsel appearing for the respondent with regard to their respective contentions.

4. I shall first take up the plea of the landlord that there was wilful default in payment of rent. According to the petition the respondent is in wilful default in payment of rent from June, 1986 to October, 1988. The trial court has found that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent. According to the lower appellate Court, the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from May, 1988 to July, 1988. The landlord/respondent herein has purchased the suit premises under Ex. A2 on 5-6-1988. The petition for eviction was filed on 1.12.1988. Prior to the filing of this R.C.O.P. 150 of 1988, the landlord had sent notice under Ex. A1 on 10.10.1988. It is not the case of the tenant that he paid any rent to the respondent. His claim would be that he paid rent to the prior owner for which neither any receipt is produced, nor the prior owner came to the witness box and substantiated the claim. But, on receipt of the notice the revision petitioner had filed R.C.O.P. 138/1988 for deposit of rent and deposited the rent for August, September and October, 1988. For the period prior to it from the date of purchase of the suit building by the respondent/landlord, there is absolutely no acceptable evidence to show that the revision petitioner had paid the rent. While so, the finding of the lower appellate court that there was wilful default in payment of rent from May, 1988 to July, 1988 is correct. Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner would submit that there was no whisper in Ex. A1 notice that there was arrears of rent and that the revision petitioner/tenant would contend that rent was paid to the prior owner and if those two circumstances are taken together, it can be inferred that the case of the revision petitioner/tenant that he paid rent to the erstwhile owner, must be true. I am unable to accept this submission for the reason that there was no receipt to evidence such payment and because of non-examinatio