Judgment :- The tenant in rent control proceedings is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. 2. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.2584 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Causes, Madras, for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner/tenant wilfully defaulted in payment of rents; has caused nuisance; and the premises occupation of the tenant is required for additional accommodation. The period of default said to be from June, 1981 to April, 1982. 3. The petition was resisted by the tenant stating, that rents upto October, 1981 have paid, and the landlord had not issued receipts for them. Thereafter, when the rent month of November, 1981 was tendered, the landlord refused to receive it. During the period December, 1981, the tenant went to Bombay and from there, the rent for the month November, 1981 was sent by money order. The money order was refused by the landlord. Continuously for subsequent months, money orders were sent from Bombay and all those money orders were refused by the landlord. In the circumstances, according to the tenant, there was no default, much-less any wilful default, to invoke Sec.l0(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act tenant also disputed the bona fides of other two grounds of eviction. 4. Learned Rent Controller, after going through the pleadings, evidence and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, held that the claim of the landlord there must be eviction on the basis, of nuisance caused by the tenant and the premises required for additional accommodation was not established. However, the first Authority that the landlord has established that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment rents. Only on that ground, the order of eviction was passed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenants filed R.C.A.No.l554 of 1983 before Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and consequently dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition is filed. 6. Mr.S.Sundaragopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner elaborately argued matter and submitted that the main reasons given for coming to the conclusion that tenant has committed wilful default are totally unsustainable in law. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and consequently dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition is filed. 6. Mr.S.Sundaragopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner elaborately argued matter and submitted that the main reasons given for coming to the conclusion that tenant has committed wilful default are totally unsustainable in law. According to the learned counsel, there is no scope for invoking Explanation to Sec. 10(2) of the Act inasmuch as eviction petition itself has been filed within two months from the date of issue of notice other reason given by the Authorities below is that when the landlord refused money orders instead of continuously sending the money order, the tenant should have resorted to remedy provided under Sec.8(2) of the Act and having failed to do so, the tenant is liable be evicted. No doubt, those reasons are stated by the Authorities below. But those are the only two reasons given by the Authorities. I find from the orders of the authorities below that they have given other reasons as well. The other reasons given by the Authorities that in the notice sent by the landlord, it has been specifically pointed out that the tenant has not paid rents for the period from June, 1981 to April, 1982. Nevertheless, in reply notice, the tenant has only generally denied the allegation in the notice and has specifically stated that rents upto October, 1981 have already been paid and therefore claim of the landlord that rents upto October, 1981 have not been paid is not correct. statement has not been given. The other reason given by the Authorities was that money orders sent from Bombay, nothing is mentioned about the period for which money order was sent. In explaining these two reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the burden is on the landlord to prove beyond doubt that the tenant committed wilful default. Having admitted that, he (landlord) has stopped issuing from January, 1980, it is for him to prove the nonpayment of rents by producing accounts or in some other way. The authorities below have wrongly thrown the burden the petitioner/ tenant to establish the factum of payment of rents. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders of the Authorities below are sustainable in law. 7. The authorities below have wrongly thrown the burden the petitioner/ tenant to establish the factum of payment of rents. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders of the Authorities below are sustainable in law. 7. Undoubtedly, on the basis of the reasons given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is possible to arrive at a different view from the one taken by the Authorities below there is no wilful default at all. But, sitting in revision, I must find out whether the given by the Authorities below and the conclusion arrived at by them are perverse and on no evidence at all. If only I come to that conclusion, then I can interfere in revision. have pointed out the reasons given by the Authorities below. Though one or two reasons not sustainable, the other reasons given by the Authorities below cannot be said to be way unsustainable. If that be so, the conclusion reached on the basis of such reasons be considered as perverse, particularly, when the Authorities below have given concurrent findings. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Authorities below. The civil revision petition, therefore, fails and the is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Six months time from today is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Petition dismissed.