K.Kannan, J.

1. The petitioner is ready and the counsel for the respondent seeks for time on the ground that he has misplaced the record. However, I have heard the counsel for the petitioner after declining the prayer for adjournment by the respondent.

2. The petition for eviction was filed on the grounds of non-payment of rent and two other grounds which are not relevant, since the other grounds were found against the landlord on the issue of nonpayment of rent for the period from 01.11.1974 to 31.07.1985, the Rent Controller found against the landlord and dismissed the petition. The decision was reversed in appeal by the Appellate Authority finding that the tenant had not paid the rent as directed at the first hearing. The so called payment making up the entire arrears as determined by the Court fell in the shape of a payment through a demand draft by the tenant to the landlord. According to the Appellate Court, no permission had been taken by the tenant to tender secondary evidence through a photocopy of a demand draft and therefore, the document was liable for rejection. The Appellate Authority therefore found fault with the reasoning of the Rent Controller and upheld t