Plea taken by tenant needs proof.

1. This revision has been preferred by the landlord under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent herein is the tenant under the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on two grounds. One is the wilful default in the payment of the rents at the rate of Rs. 25 per month alleged to have been committed by the tenant from March, 1973 to July, 1974. The second ground is that he requires the premises in question for the occupation of his daughter. The petition for eviction was contested by the tenant. According to the tenant, the rate of rent is only Rs. 22,50 per month and he has paid the rents at the rate of Rs. 22.50 upto July, 1974 but the landlord never issued any receipts for the payments made by the tenant. The case of the landlord that he requires the premises for the occupation of his daughter was also not accepted by the tenant and such a case of the landlord was characterised as lacking in bone fide . The Rent Controller considered the case of the parties on the materials placed before him and found that the case of the landlord with reference to the requirement of the premises for the occupation of his daughter is not bona fide and the said ground urged for eviction of the tenant was negatived. However, on the question of default, the Rent Controller found that the rate of rent is Rs. 22,50 per month and upheld the case of the landlord that there was wilful default committed by the tenent in the payment of the rents. In this view, eviction of the tenant was ordered by the Rent Controller.

2. The tenant preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority reversed findings of the Rent Controller on the question of wilful default and dismissed the petition for eviction. Aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has preferred the present revision. Mr. R.N. Kothandaraman learned counsel for the petitioner, would an urge that the orders of the Appellate Authority suffer from impropriety, irregularity and incorrectness as well as illegality, in that the scope of the provisions of the Act has not been kept in mind by the Appellate Authority and even on the facts placed before the Court, there has been an omission to draw the proper judicial inference therefrom by the Appellate Authority.

3. Mr. K. M. Santhanagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent, would urge that this Court should not interfere in revision with the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority which according to the learned counsel, are factual. This submission of the learned counsel omits to take note of the scope of the powers of revision available to this Court under S. 25 of the Act. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the powers under S. 25 of the Act are wide enough to warrant interference if the Courts below, even on the admitted facts, choose to draw an improper and a wrong inference which cannot find sustenance by the provisions of the Act.

4. The case of the landlord is that there was a failure by the tenant to pay the rents continuously from March, 1973 to July, 1974, The tenant would urge that he has paid the rents. To test the case of the parties in such a context, the Court should first endeavour to apply the provisions of the very statute under which the proceedings are Initiated for eviction. A very salutary provision is incorporated in the Act and that is S. 8. The marginal note to that section speaks about the liability of the landl ord to give receipt for the rent or advance. The marginal note, prior to the amendment introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973, readt “the right of tenant paying rent or advance to receipt,” Prior to the amendment, sub-S.(1) of S. 8 of the Act read as follows—

“Every tenant who makes a payment on account of rent or advance shall be entitled to obtain a receipt in the prescribed form for the amount paid duly signed by the landlord or his authorised agent.”

After the amendment, it r