ORDER Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition by the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is against the order of the appellate authority confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. 2. Three grounds were raised for eviction, namely, (1) Wilful default in the payment of rent; (2) Owner's occupation and (3) demolition and reconstruction. On the latter two grounds both the courts below concurred. On the former ground of wilful default, though the Rent Controller held that there was default in the payment of rent for the period in question, namely 15.1978 to 315.1980 he did not hold it as wilful. But the appellate authority held it is wilful also. 3. So far as demolition and reconstruction, the following passage in Ex.B.1 letter dt. 25.4.1980 sent by the counsel for the tenant is significant. 'As the house (demised building) was also damaged by the fire accident, which took place about seven years ago in that area, the thatches have to be renewed now and they are in damaged condition. Further the eastern wall was affected by the fire accident. It is fully damaged and it is in a falling condition and it is dangerous to all the inmates of the house and especially it is dangerous to the children of my client. The said wall has to be completely demolished and it must be replaced by erecting a new wall.' So, the bona fides of the landlord in his application for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction are clear from the very averments of the tenant himself in the abovesaid letter. That apart, the courts below also held that R.W.1 tenant himself admitted about the damaged condition of the building. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out a passage from P.W.1's evidence to show that the respondent was not having means to demolish and put up a new building. In the said evidence P.W.1 says that he has got bank balance of Rs. 25,000. But he has not filed the pass book showing the bank balance. But I was not drawn to any plea in the counter statement of the tenant before the Rent Controller stating that the landlord has no means. In the said evidence P.W.1 says that he has got bank balance of Rs. 25,000. But he has not filed the pass book showing the bank balance. But I was not drawn to any plea in the counter statement of the tenant before the Rent Controller stating that the landlord has no means. So, this argument has no substance, particularly because the landlord is a businessman having four godowns and the eviction order on this ground has to be sustained. 4. Then, coming to wilful default, both the Courts below have held that there was default in the payment of rent for a very long period, namely, 1.5.1978 to 31.5.1980 and there is proof of payment only for the month of March, 1980 under Ex.B.12 Money Order. For the period prior to March, 1980 there is no documentary proof. No receipt showing payment of rent for the said period has been filed. But the contention is that the landlord was not in the habit of giving receipts. But there are documentary evidences showing that the landlord was giving the receipts for the period prior to 1.5.1978. Ex.A.22 is one such counterfoil of the receipts. It is dated 20.3.1971. Ex.A.8 to A.11 are certain counter foils of the receipts. That is why, the trial court says that the petitioner was issuing the receipt 'and the contention of the tenant belies his own statement'. The trial court also observed that Ex.A.21 and 23 to 30 go a long way to show that upto 17.1.1980 the respondent-tenant has paid the rent. These are also documentary evidence showing payment of rent. So, it cannot be said that the landlord was not in the habit of giving any receipt. This court also held in Maruthachala Udayar v. Dandapani (1980)1 M.L.J. 169 as follows: Where a wilful default in the payment of rent is alleged by the landlord and the answer of ' the tenant is that the landlord never issued receipts for the payment of rents, the Court cannot ignore the implication of Section 8 to assess the controversy without reference to such implication. In the absence of proof of payment of rent, it will not be in consonance with the provisions of the Act to presume that the tenant must have paid the rent, and the landlord must have declined to issue the receipt. In the absence of proof of payment of rent, it will not be in consonance with the provisions of the Act to presume that the tenant must have paid the rent, and the landlord must have declined to issue the receipt. Further even the trial Court holds that the default for the abovesaid period is true. But it goes on to observe that because the tenant was in penury circumstances he was not able to pay and his default was not wilful. This is not the correct approach. If the tenant is unable to pay the rent due to his poverty or other similar circumstances, even then it will be construed as wilful. In the decision In Sivakami Ammal v. P.S. Elango (1982) 1 M.L.J. P.423 it was held that inability to pay the rent was a very strong circumstances indicating that the default was wilful. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relationship between the landlord and tenant was cordial till about March, 1980 and that is why the receipt for the payment of rent was not insisted. But, there is no such plea. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Courts below, on this ground also. 6. On the ground of owner's occupation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the building in question was a residential one and eviction of the. said building cannot be sought for, for non-residential purpose as is done in the present case. There is no discussion about this aspect in the orders of the courts below. That shows that the tenant has not argued this aspect before the Courts below. However, the petitioner has raised this plea in the counter statement before the Rent Controller and it is not disputed that the petitioner-tenant is only living in the demised building and the law is that the landlord can ask for eviction of a residential building for residential purpose only and the non-residential building for non-residential purpose only: vide Lakshmanan v. Haji Alavudeen Saheb Sons (1980)1 M.L.J. P.9. Therefore, on this ground the landlord has to fail. However, if any single ground stipulated under the Act for eviction of the tenant is proved, the landlord can have the eviction order. Therefore, on this ground the landlord has to fail. However, if any single ground stipulated under the Act for eviction of the tenant is proved, the landlord can have the eviction order. Having held that on the two aforesaid grounds eviction order should be passed, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Courts-below. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Three months time is given for vacating the building in question provided the tenant files an affidavit within two weeks from this date undertaking to vacate within three months positively. No costs.