Order.-This is a civil revision petition against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority reversing an order of the learned Rent Controller. The petition was filed by the respondent herein who is the owner of the premises to evict the revision petitioner from the premises in his occupation on the allegation that he had committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from 12th September, 1970 till the date of the petition for a period of six months, that the premises were required by way of additional accommodation and that the tenant has not occupied the building for a period of more than six: months. The learned Rent Controller found against all these contentions of the landlord. However, the learned Appellate Authority accepted all the grounds on which the landlord relied and directed the eviction of the tenant. 2. Three questions that have to be answered are.- (1) Whether the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent? (2) Whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for more than six months? and (3) Whether the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant and recover the premises in his occupation by way of additional accommodation and whether permitting him to do so and evicting the tenant will result in greater disadvantage to the tenant than what would accrue by way of advantage to the landlord? 3. I must straightaway say that the findings of the learned Appellate Authority on the latter two points cannot be sustained. The learned Appellate Authority had come to the conclusion that the advantage to the landlord would outweigh the disadvantage to the tenant, if the landlord is allowed to recover possession for additional accommodation, merely because the learned Appellate Authority was of the opinion that it would not be difficult for the tenant to find alternate premises. This is pure speculation. If regard is had to the overcrowded condition prevailing in the locality in Madurai Town in which the premises in question is situate and the trouble to which the tenant would be put if he is to find an alternate accommodation in that area or in its vicinity, it is clear that the opinion of the learned Appellate Authority should be deemed to be not only speculative but preposterous. I take Judicial notice of the fact that the premises in question which is situate near the Central Market Madurai which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, is a highly crowded locality and that there is bound to be very great competition for even a small place to vend and carry on any business in this area. Therefore, this ground on which the learned Appellate Authority thought that the landlord is entitled to eviction cannot be sustained. On this question it was also found by the learned Appellate Authority that the landlord required the premises by way of additional accommodation to accommodate his mother who is now in Salem residing with his daughter and who desires to return to Madurai town and live with her son and get her self treated. This of course is a valid ground for considering the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation. However, I am of the view that the disadvantage that may be caused to the tenant by evicting him will outweigh the advantages to the landlord if he is granted the additional accommodation required by him. Therefore, on this ground the landlord is not entitled to eviction. 4. Similarly, the learned Appellate Authority found that the tenant is liable to be evicted because he has not been in occupation of the premises for a period of more than six months. This conclusion he came to by casting the onus of proof on the tenant. The onus of proving that the tenant was not in occupation of the premises for a period of more than six months continuously is entirely on the landlord who alleges the same. The landlord has not gone into the box to swear that the tenant has not been in occupation of the premises for a period of more than six months. Therefore this contention of the landlord has not been established. 5. However, the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. Admittedly, the tenant did not pay any rent for the period from 12th September, 1975 till the date of presentation of the petition for eviction in the court of the learned Rent Controller. He endeavours to make out that the default committed by him was not wilful, because the rent tendered by him was not accepted by the landlord. Admittedly, the tenant did not pay any rent for the period from 12th September, 1975 till the date of presentation of the petition for eviction in the court of the learned Rent Controller. He endeavours to make out that the default committed by him was not wilful, because the rent tendered by him was not accepted by the landlord. If the landlord refused to accept the rent tendered by him, he should have sent the same by money order. The very fact that he has not done so discredits his endeavour to make out that he tendered the rent to the landlord and he refused to receive the same. In the circumstances, the conclusion come to by the learned Appellate Authority that the default, admittedly committed by the tenant, was a wilful default is correct and is confirmed. Hence this civil revision petition is dismissed. Now, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner has vacated the premises already. Therefore, the question of granting time does not arise. There will be no order as to costs.