G. Chockalingam, J.

The Revisions are directed against the Order and Decreetal Order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Devakottai, in R.C.A, Nos. 17 & 18 of 1990 dated 27.11.1992 reversing the Order and Decretal Order of the learned Rent Controller, Devakottai in R.C.O.P Nos.32 & 33 of 1989 dated 27.11.1990.

2. Brief facts in the cases are as follows:

In C.R.P. No. 2020 of 1993, the Civil Revision Petitioner is the Landlord and the Respondent is the Tenant. In C.R.P. No. 2021 of 1993, the Civil Revision Petitioner is the Landlord and deceased Kanagasabapahy was the Tenant and the other Respondents are Legal Heirs of the deceased Tenant.

2(ii) The Suit Scheduled property was purchased from one Janakiammal and after purchase, Janakiammal has instructed the Tenants to pay the Rent to the Petitioner. But the Tenant has not chosen to pay the rent from April 1989 and they have committed wilful default to pay the rent.

2(iii) Further, it is pleaded that the present building was very old one. The Landlord was directed by the Municipality to demolish the old building and construct the new building and obtained License from the Competent Authority and he has acquired Building Plan for reconstruction. The Tenants have objected all the allegations made by the Landlord. There is no Statutory Notice issued regarding the transfer of ownership from the previous Landlord to the present Civil Revision Petitioner. There is no default or wilful default and there is no necessity for demolition and reconstruction and the said pleading is not true. Considering the rival submissions made on by both Tenant and the Landlord, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on both grounds on 27.11.1990, against which, the Tenants preferred Appeals. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after analysing the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the Landlord is not entitled to eviction and allowed both the Appeals Against the Orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the Landlord.

2(iv). It is admitted by either side that the present Civil Revision Petitioner, Kanagasabapathy, the deceased Respondent and one Raja were carrying on business in the same building. It is also admitted that the Tenant is paying Rs,70 per month. The Respondent used to pay the rent to the Petitioner and obtained Receipts from the Petitioner even when Janaki Ammal was the Owner of the property. It is clearly admitted that Janakiammal was in habit of issuing Receipts to her Tenants.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Landlord would contend that the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the change of ownership from Janaki Ammal to the Petitioner by Sale Deed dated 1.4.1987 was not brought to their knowledge. He would further contend that Tenant-Landlord relationship was admitted in the evidence on the basis of the transfer of property from Janakiammal to the present Petitioner. Further, the Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that one of the Tenants, stated in his evidence that transfer of ownership from Janakiammal to the present Petitioner was informed to another Tenant also. The Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings the Respondent did not attempt to pay the rent either to Janaki Ammal directly of to the Petitioner directly and accumulated the arrears for the unduly long period of about 20 months.

4. The Petitioner prayed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the Petition property and the Appellate Authority grievously erred in dismissing the said Application. The Appellate Authority after considering the admitted facts that the Petitioner was having a number of business in Devakottai, ought to have come to the conclusion that the Petitioner got means to demolish and reconstruct the Petition premises. The observation that the Petitioner has got a Bank balance of Rs.30,000 only as against the estimated cost of Rs.2,