Judgment :- Balasubramanyan, J. The tenant of a non-residential building within the meaning of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called the Act, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The landlord, the respondent herein, filed an application, R.C.P.25 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Trivandrum, for eviction of the petitioner under S.11(2) and S.11(4) (iv) of the Act. Claim under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act was found against by the Rent Controller and was not pursued by the landlord before the appellate Authority. We are therefore not concerned with that claim in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The landlord sought eviction of the petitioner under S.11(2) of the Act on the allegation that the rent was in arrears from July 1984 at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month and that inspite of issuance of notice Ext. Al under the proviso to S.11(2)(b) of the Act, the tenant has not paid the rent and that therefore the landlord is entitled to an order for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The tenant opposed the application disputing the rate of rent and also pleading that the rent was not in arrears and the landlord was seeking to take undue advantage of the fact that she was not in the habit of issuing receipts for the payment of rent. The tenant therefore submitted that the claim for eviction is not bonafide or meritorious and therefore the application liable to be dismissed. 3. The Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs.15/- per month and not Rs. 35/-per month as claimed by the landlord. This finding was also accepted by the landlord before the appellate Authority and therefore we have to proceed in this Revision on she basis that the rent for the building is Rs. 151- per month. 4. The evidence in the case essentially consisted of the notice Ext. Al, reply notice Ext. A3 and the oral evidence of the landlord and the tenant. The Rent Controller entered a finding that the landlord has not proved that the rent was in arrears as it was quite possible that she may not have issued receipts to the tenant as she had admitted in her evidence that she was not in the habit of issuing receipts to her other tenants who were regular in paying their rent. The Rent Controller therefore dismissed the application for eviction. In the appeal by the landlord the appellate Authority after an advertence to S.9 of the Act, the notice Ext. Al and the reply notice Ext. A3 and the oral evidences of the landlord and the tenant came to the conclusion than on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tenant on whom lay the burden to prove the discharge of rent set up by him, has failed to substantiate that plea and that therefore the landlord's evidence that the rent was in arrears is liable to be accepted. The appellate Authority therefore reversed the order of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction under S.11(2) of the Act. 5. It is submitted by Sri. Sankarasubban learned counsel for the tenant-revision petitioner that the appreciation of evidence by the appellate Authority is not proper, that the burden is on the landlord to make out a claim for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act and that therefore it was not part of the burden of the tenant to establish a plea of discharge as if it were in a civil suit. He also submitted that undue importance has been given by the appellate Authority to the provisions contained in S.9 of the Act and that the appellate Authority has also not fully appreciated the effect of some of the admissions of the landlord examined as PW1. He therefore submits that the order of the appellate Authority is liable to be interfered with in Revision by this court. 6. Section 9 of the Act provides that a tenant is entitled to demand and obtain a receipt for the payment of rent made by him to the landlord. It also provides that in a case where the landlord refuses to issue receipt, it is open to the tenant to sent the rent by way of money order after deducting the money order commission or issue a notice to the landlord requiring the landlord to specify a bank into which the tenant could remit the rent due. We find that this statutory provision is a protection to the tenant and it is for the tenant to make use of such protection in a case where the landlord refuses to issue receipt to the tenant. We find that this statutory provision is a protection to the tenant and it is for the tenant to make use of such protection in a case where the landlord refuses to issue receipt to the tenant. The case of the tenant in this case is that the landlord was not issuing receipts to him though he wanted receipts. If that be so one would normally expect the tenant to take recourse to S.9of the Act and his not having done so is a relevant circumstance in appreciating the claim of the landlord for eviction. The appellate Authority also took note of the fact that in his reply, Ext. A3, to the notice under the proviso to S.11 (2)(b) of the Act (Ext. A1) the tenant had no case that receipts were not being issued inspite of being demanded. It is in this background that the appellate Authority has appreciated the oral evidence of PW1 the landlord and rw1 the tenant. The appellate Authority has concluded on such appreciation that the tenant was in arrears and that the appellant was entitled to an order for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act 7. We are of the view that the appellate Authority has rightly referred to S.9 of the Act and to the reply notice Ext. A3 in appreciating the contentions of the parties. We are not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that S.9 of the Act should not be given importance in entertaining a claim for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act. Any prudent tenant would and should resort to S.9 of the Act in cases where the landlord refuses to issue receipt to him on his paying the rent due. If he is not prudent enough to resort to that course it will require very strong evidence on his side to substantiate a plea that he has paid the rent without obtaining receipts for the same. Equally, the circumstance that he" had not stated in his reply notice Ext. A3 that he used to pay rent without getting receipts for the same or that the landlord refused to issue receipts to him when demanded is also a relevant circumstance in weighing the circumstances and probabilities of the case. We are in full agreement with the view taken, by the appellate Authority on the evidence that the tenant was in arrears. We are in full agreement with the view taken, by the appellate Authority on the evidence that the tenant was in arrears. Even assuming that it may be possible to take another view-we do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is possible-it is not for this court sitting in Revision under S.20of the Act to disagree with the view taken by the appellate Authority. (See the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Anthappai v. Ahammed, 1992 (2) KLT 284 (SC). In the result we confirm the order for eviction passed by the appellate Authority and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. However we grant the tenant two months' time from this date for deposit of the arrears of rent to avert the order for eviction. We make no order as to costs.