Judgment :- The respondent in R.C.O.P.No.28 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller Munsif) of Mayiladuthurai is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P. 2. The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the respondent under Sec.10(2)(i) the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petition mentioned property belongs to the petitioner and he let out the same respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.45. The respondent committed wilful default payment of rent for a period of eight months from July, 1984 to February, 1985. respondent resisted the application for eviction contending that he has not committed default in the payment of rent. Before the Rent Controller the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 and the respondent has examined himself as R.W.1, Exs.A-1 and A marked on behalf of the petitioner and Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of the respondent. the basis of the evidence on record the Rent Controller found that the respondent committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the period in question and consequently R.C.O.P.No.28 of 1985 and passed an order of eviction against the respondent. As the order of the Rent Controller the respondent filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.3 of 1988 the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court) Mayiladuthurai. The Appellate Authority confirmed finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment Appellate Authority the’ respondent has filed the present civil revision petition. 3. Mr.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgment Appellate Authority is vitiated in that the Appellate Authority has not given any finding independent appraisal of evidence on record and that the Appellate Authority has cryptic order confirming the finding of the Rent Controller. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on a decision in KG.Rama Iyer v. Jwalaprasad, 1990 S.C.C. 68. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on a decision in KG.Rama Iyer v. Jwalaprasad, 1990 S.C.C. 68. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The discussion portion of the judgment of the Appellate Authority is contained only in para 7 judgment, which reads as follows: The Appellate Authority has not given any reason for arriving at its conclusion but stated that the finding of the Rent Controller does not call for interference in the appeal. Appellate Authority has not independently considered the evidence available on record. Appellate Authority has not even adverted to either the oral or documentary evidence by the parties to the proceedings. Even if the merits of the case warrant the confirmation the finding of the Rent Controller by the Appellate Authority, it can do so only specifically referring to the evidence both oral and document available on record. manner in which the Appellate Authority has disposed of the Rent Control Appeal is not satisfactory. The Supreme Court in KG.Rama Iyer v. Jwalaprasad, 1990 S.C.C. (Supp.) while dealing with a similar order passed by the High Court in the civil revision observed as follows: “After hearing counsel we are satisfied that this was not a case which the High Court should have disposed of by a summary order of this kind but it should have given some reasons upholding the conclusions of the courts below that the tenant was in wilful default in respect of the payment of rent, particularly in view of the conduct of the parties as shown by conduct of the parties and referred to in the judgment of the courts below. In view of this set aside the Judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to High Court for a fresh disposal giving reasons for its conclusions.” The above discussion of mine obliges me to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority in this civil revision petition. In view of this set aside the Judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to High Court for a fresh disposal giving reasons for its conclusions.” The above discussion of mine obliges me to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority in this civil revision petition. Consequently, the civil revision petition is allowed, judgment of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal on the basis of the evidence already available on record lower Appellate Court is further directed to dispose of the Rent Control appeal afresh merits, according to law and after independently considering the oral and documentary evidence available in this case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy order. No costs. Petition allowed.