ORDER : D.A. Desai, J. Special leave granted. 2. A petition was filed against the present appellant by the landlord for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. There was some dispute between the parties about the payment of the amount of Rs 1,580/-. The trial Court after having examined the affidavits held that the appellant was guilty of committing wilful default in payment of rent. The trial Court overlooked the fact that the expression 'default' is qualified by the adjective 'wilful'. The dispute between the parties was about payment of Rs 1,580/- by the tenant to the landlord. Evidence was led by both the parties in assertion of their respective contentions. May be the Court ultimately accepted the version of the landlord about the payment; but that by itself without anything more is not indicative of the default being wilful. Ground for eviction as set out in the relevant statute is 'wilful default' and not any default or lapse in payment of rent. 'wilful' would imply purposive or intentional default or gross negligence in payment of rent. A bona fide contention pleading payment of rent and failure to prove it to the court's satisfaction would not clothe the failure to prove payment as wilful default in payment of rent so as to afford a ground for eviction. If the view taken by the High Court is upheld, a tenant to save his lease must pay up a second time on the being evicted for his failure to prove the pain of payment. 3. Against the decree of eviction the percent appellant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority examined the matter in correct perspective and cane to the conclusion that the tenant could not be held guilty of wilful default in payment of rent. Accordingly, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's petition for eviction. The landlord look the matter to the High Court invoking its revisioral jurisdiction. 4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court overlooked the para- meters of revisional jurisdiction and reviewed the entire evidence meticulously; went into appraisal and analysis and examination of evidence and recorded a finding as if operating as a trial court examining evidence. The landlord look the matter to the High Court invoking its revisioral jurisdiction. 4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court overlooked the para- meters of revisional jurisdiction and reviewed the entire evidence meticulously; went into appraisal and analysis and examination of evidence and recorded a finding as if operating as a trial court examining evidence. The learned Judge held that only evidence in support of alleged payment of Rs 1,580/- consisted of various entries in the books of accounts of the appellant and these entries did not appeal to the learned Judge. The learned Judge observed that the account books cannot be accepted and therefore, there is no reliable evidence to prove payment of Rs 1,580/- and the payment accordingly is not proved. He accordingly held that there was default in payment of rent and proceeded to reverse the judgment of the appellate authority, No attempt was made to ascertain whether in these circumstances default would be a wilful default as understood in the relevant statute. 5. There are two errors apparent on the fact of the judgment under appeal. First the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction could not have taken upon itself the function of appreciation or appraisal of evidence until it held that the findings were perverse. Even if other view of evidence was possible, the High Court could not have substituted its own view of the evidence on the findings of facts recorded in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Secondly, the High Court completely missed the point that the expression `default' is qualified by the adjective `wilful'. Rejection of the evidence showing payment of rent by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the default was wilful. It must be shown that the payment pleaded was a device to defeat the landlord's claim or was a mere pretence or disclosed ; gross negligence. The High Court has not recorded a finding to that effect nor could it have been reached it in the facts of this case. If the approach of the High Court is adhered to, no tenant dare plead payment on the pain of being dubbed a wilful defaulter on failing to prove payment. Tenant will always be at a comparative disadvantage in a judicial trial in as much as the moment the landlord denies payment, the burden of proving payment to the hilt shifts to the tenant. Tenant will always be at a comparative disadvantage in a judicial trial in as much as the moment the landlord denies payment, the burden of proving payment to the hilt shifts to the tenant. Giving a receipt evidencing payment of rent is not the current culture with property owners. Therefore, with respect, we are unable to appreciate the approach of the learned Judge of the High Court in not accepting the eminently correct view taken by the appellate authority. The Appellate authority approached the matter from the correct legal perspective and held that the tenant was not guilty of wilful default. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Judge was in excess of his jurisdiction and on merits does not commend to us and cannot be accepted. The appeal will have to be accordingly allowed. 6. Having heard Mr. A.S. Nambiar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Raghuraman, learned counsel for the respondent we are of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case the fair rent of the demised premises should be fixed at Rs 150/- p.m. commencing from January 1, 1985. Mr. AS. Nambiar, learned counsel assures us that the arrears of rent have already been deposited. If the rent in arrears has been deposited, liberty is reserved to the respondent-landlord to withdraw the same. 7. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the decree of eviction is set aside. The fair rent of the demised premises is fixed at Rs 150/- p.m. commencing from January 1, 1985. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs of hearing in this Court.