Judgment : The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for owner’s occupation under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). According to the landlady the monthly rent payable by the tenant is Rs.50. The landlady submitted that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from"4. 1984 to 30.6.1985 for a period of fifteen months, amounting to Rs.750 per month. According to the landlady on 12. 1984 the tenant paid a sum of Rs.250 by way of cheque and also paid another sum of Rs.250 by way of money orders. Thus the tenant has paid Rs.500 out of Rs.750. Therefore, the tenant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.250 by way of arrears of rent. The landlady also required the petition premises for the purpose of carrying on business by his retired husband. Therefore, the landlady filed petition for eviction under Sec.l0(2)(i) and Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. 2. The Rent Controller found that there is no wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlady. The Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlady in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The petition for eviction was dismissed on both these grounds. On appeal, however, the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and, accordingly, ordered eviction on that ground. So far as the ground relating to Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is concerned, the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted as under: The tenant used to pay the rent in lump sums. The landlady is not in the habit of issuing rental receipts for the rent received from the tenant. In the notice sent by the landlady, it was stated that the rent is due from 4. 1984 to 30.6.1985. The tenant has sent a cheque for Rs.250 on 12. 1984. A sum of Rs.500 was paid by way of money orders on five occasions. In the notice sent by the landlady, it was stated that the rent is due from 4. 1984 to 30.6.1985. The tenant has sent a cheque for Rs.250 on 12. 1984. A sum of Rs.500 was paid by way of money orders on five occasions. The tenant has also paid another sum of Rs.250 on 12. 1984. The tenant has paid the entire arrears of Rs.750 as claimed by the landlady in her notice. It was, therefore, submitted that there is no wilful default in payment of rent. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ landlady submitted as under: The rent due from 4. 1984 to 30.6.1985 for a period of 15 months. The tenant paid by way of cheque a sum of Rs.250 on 12. 1984. The tenant also paid a sum of Rs.250 by way of money orders on five occasions. It is not correct to state that a sum of Rs.250 was paid on 12. 1984. Therefore, it was submitted that the tenant is in arrears of a sum of Rs.250. Inspite of the notice sent by the landlady, the tenant has failed and neglected to pay the arrears of rent, and therefore he is liable to be evicted from the petition premises. 5. I have heard the rival submissions. The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in ordering eviction under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act. The fact remains that the petition for eviction was filed by the landlady alleging that the rent is due from 4. 1984 for a period of fifteen months, amounting to Rs.750. The landlady accepted the payment of Rs.250 by way of cheque dated 12. 1984. She also accepted payment of Rs.250 by way of money orders on five occasions. Therefore, according to the landlady the amount paid by the tenant towards arrears of rent was only Rs.500 and not Rs.750. Under these circumstances, the landlady submitted that the tenant is in arrears of Rs.250 payable by him. On the other hand, according to the tenant, he paid a sum of Rs.250 on 12. 1984 and another sum of Rs.250 by way of cheque dated 30.12.1984 and another sum of Rs.500 by way of money order on five occasions. Thus according to the tenant he has paid a sum of Rs.750 as claimed by the landlady. On the other hand, according to the tenant, he paid a sum of Rs.250 on 12. 1984 and another sum of Rs.250 by way of cheque dated 30.12.1984 and another sum of Rs.500 by way of money order on five occasions. Thus according to the tenant he has paid a sum of Rs.750 as claimed by the landlady. The controversy now is with regard to payment of Rs.250 alleged to have been made on 12. 1984. The Rent Controller pointed out that on 12. 1984 and 30.12.1984 the tenant has paid Rs.250 on each of the abovesaid dates, but there is no evidence on record on the side of the tenant to show that a sum of Rs.250 was paid on 12. 1984. The tenant relied upon the deposition made by the husband of the landlady. In his deposition, he has stated that a sum of Rs.250 was paid on 12. 1984. This was taken advantage of by the tenant to state that he has paid a sum of Rs.250 on 12. 1984 and another sum of Rs.250 by way of cheque on 12. 1984. Neither in the petition nor in the counter, there was mention about the payment of Rs.250 on 30.12.1984. According to the facts arising in the present case, the tenant was in the habit of paying rent in lump sums and the landlady used to accept the same. For the controversial payment of Rs.250 on 12. 1984 except the oral statement made by the landlady’s husband there is no other documentary evidence on record to substantiate this version. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ landlady pointed out that P.W.1 instead of stating that the rent was paid on 30.12.1984 wrongly stated that the amount was paid on 12. 1984. Therefore, according to learned counsel on the basis of the oral evidence given by the husband of the landlady the tenant cannot say that a sum of Rs.250 was paid on 12. 1984. It remains to be seen that it is the duty of the tenant to pay the rent every month on due dates. On 29. 1979 the landlady sent a notice to the tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. Again on 210. 1979 the landlady sent another notice to the tenant calling upon the tenant to pay the rent to her. Finally, on 12. On 29. 1979 the landlady sent a notice to the tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. Again on 210. 1979 the landlady sent another notice to the tenant calling upon the tenant to pay the rent to her. Finally, on 12. 1984, the landlady sent another notice to the tenant calling upon him to pay the rent to her. When the landlady sent these notices to the tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent, it is not open to the tenant to say that he could pay the arrears of rent in lump sums. Even if there was any such practice between the landlady and the tenant, that practice would cease to operate after the landlady sent a notice to the tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent in time. In the present case, the landlady said that a sum of Rs.250 is due by way of arrears of rent for a period of five months. The tenant has no documentary evidence to show that the said five months rent was paid to the landlady. He relied upon the oral evidence given by the landlady’s husband stating that the rent was paid on 12. 1984. In the petition for eviction the landlady has clearly stated that a sum of Rs.250 was paid by way of cheque only on 12. 1984. In the counter filed by the tenant he has not stated that he has paid another sum of Rs.250 on 30.12.1984. The tenant has not stated as to how and in what mode a sum of Rs.250 was paid. After the controversy arose it is for the tenant to insist for a receipt for payment of Rs.250 said to have been made on 12. 1984. This was not done by the tenant. Therefore, the tenant failed to establish that he paid a sum of Rs.250 on 12. 1984. Under such circumstances, I consider that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in holding that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for a period of five months, amounting to Rs.250 and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Sec.10(2)(i) of the" Act. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of eviction passed under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act. 6. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Time for eviction two months. No costs.