Judgment : Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.41 of 1988 on the file of Rent Controller, Tirunelveli is the revision petitioner. 2. Landlord filed application for eviction of tenant on the ground of wilful default, for different user, tenant has committed active waste in the property and also causing nuisance to neighbours and also ceased to occupy the building for more than six months without any reasonable cause. Rent Controller after taking evidence held that tenant is liable to be evicted only on the ground of wilful default and making use of the building for other use other than for which the building is let out. All the other grounds are found against. The same has become final. 3. Challenging the order of Rent Controller, tenant filed R.C.A.No.51 of 1993 before Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli, Appellate Authority also confirmed the decision of Rent Controller by dismissing the appeal. The same is challenged in this revision petition. 4. In his eviction petition, landlord contended that the building is a non-residential building and including scheduled premises, there are nine shop rooms, all used for non-residential purposes only. Petitioner herein was allowed to occupy the building on rent for purpose of conducting a photo studio under the name and style “Balu Studio’ on his agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.400. Rent is to be paid to both the landlords at the rate of Rs.8,200 each. Rental arrangement also provides that any landlord can receive rent on behalf of the other. 5. Landlord further alleged that rent was paid only till December, 1986 and no rent was paid thereafter and as on February, 1988, more than Rs.5,000 is due towards rent arrears. It is also averred that on 28. 1987, tenant began to make use of the scheduled premises for his residence also. He is residing there with his family and he is also preparing food in the premises. There is no provision for kitchen,bathroom and bedroom in the premises and it is constructed only as shop room. In view of tenant making use of scheduled premises as residential house, he is liable to be evicted. 6. Inthe counter statement filed by tenant he contended that there are five rooms in the scheduled premises and even at the time when rental arrangement was taken, he was permitted to use the building for residential purpose and remaining portion as photo studio. 6. Inthe counter statement filed by tenant he contended that there are five rooms in the scheduled premises and even at the time when rental arrangement was taken, he was permitted to use the building for residential purpose and remaining portion as photo studio. He also said that landlord demanded enhancement of rent from August, 1987 at the rate of Rs.500, which demand was not accepted by him. On 28. 1987, landlord with his associates forcibly entered scheduled premises and removed many articles belonging to tenant and the same is subject matter of a police complaint made by him. Police complaint was made by him on 28. 1987. According to him, he has paid rent for entire period and rent receipts were also taken by landlord when he forcibly entered on 28. 1987. He is not a defaulter and not liable to be evicted. 7. Rent controller on the above pleadings took oral and documentary evidence. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on the side of landlord, who got examined himself as P.W.1 on the side of tenant Exs.B-1 to B-22 were marked and he got himself examined as D.W.1. Rent Controller held that the contention of tenant that landlord has removed rent receipts and therefore he is not in a position to prove the discharge of rent arrears, is not true. He has not paid rent from January, 1987 and for 14 months he is in arrears. Rent Controller also took note of the fact that only after filing application under Sec.11 (4) of the Act, tenant thought of depositing rent in the court. Landlord filed three applications and only when orders are passed. tenant was in the habit of depositing rent in the court. Taking into consideration the conduct of tenant, Rent Controller found that he is wilful defaulter and liable to be evicted. 8. In regard to the contention that tenant is using building for different purpose, Rent Controller held that the case of landlord stands proved. The fact that entire premises including scheduled building is constructed only as shop rooms was accepted by Rent Controller. All the other tenants are also making use of the rooms only for the purpose of their business is admitted. There is no provision for kitchen, bathroom and bedroom, etc. was also taken note of by the Rent Controller. The fact that entire premises including scheduled building is constructed only as shop rooms was accepted by Rent Controller. All the other tenants are also making use of the rooms only for the purpose of their business is admitted. There is no provision for kitchen, bathroom and bedroom, etc. was also taken note of by the Rent Controller. Rent Controller also took note of the fact that on the date when tenant took scheduled premises on rent, he was residing with his family in some other place and landlord of that building had to file eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.103 of 1985 and only after an order was passed in that case, tenant came to occupy the scheduled premises for the purpose of his residence. Contention of tenant that even at the inception of tenancy, he was residing there was found against. 9. Though the matter was taken in appeal in R.C.A.No.51 of 1993 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, appellate authority did not think of taking a different view and consequently dismissed the appeal. 10. In this revision petition learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that landlord has not filed best evidence in this case to prove the nature of tenancy, and therefore an adverse inference will have to be drawn against him. The contention is that terms of rental arrangement is put down in writing and landlord has also agreed that there is such rental arrangement. According to tenant, purpose for which he has taken the building for rent can be proved by that document. The nonproduction of document by landlord is only to withheld the best evidence. He further contended that if the document is produced, that will show that the building was let for residential purpose also. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied on the decision reported in Gopal Krishnaji v. Mohamed Haji Latif , A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1413 wherein it is held thus: “…Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is no, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Murugesan Pillai v. Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi , 14 I.A. 98 at 103: A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 6 at 8 Lord Shaw, observed as follows: ”A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly, to furnish to the courts the rent material for its decision. With regards to third parties, this may be right enough - they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit; but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in their Lordships’ opinion an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withheld from the court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition. “ [Italics supplied by me] This passage was cited with approval by this Court in a recent decision - Biltu Ram v. Jainandan Prasad, C.A.No.941 of 1965, dated 14. 1958 (S.C.). In that case, reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants upon the following passage from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Mt.Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh Mt.Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh Mt.Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh , 42 I.A. 202 at206: A.I.R. 1915 P.C. 98: ”But it is open to a litigant to refrain from producing any documents that he considers irrelevant; if the other litigant is dissatisfied it is for him to apply for an affidavit of documents and he can obtain inspection and production of all that appears to him in such affidavit to be relevant and proper. If he fails so to do neither he nor the court at his suggestion is entitled to draw any inference as to the contents of any such documents.“ 6.But Shah, J. speaking for the court, stated: ”The observations of the Judicial Committee do not support the proposition that unless a party is called upon expressly to make an affidavit of documents and inspection and production of documents is demanded, the court cannot raise an adverse inference against a party withholding evidence in his possession. Such a rule is inconsistent with Illustration (g) of Sec.114 of the Evidence Act, and also an impressive body of authority.“ 11. Learned counsel also placed before me the deposition of P.W.1, who is the first respondent in this revision petition. As against the said contention, learned counsel for respondent submitted that landlord never stated that such rent deed is ever now available for production. What the landlord said was that there is rental arrangement and it must have been taken placed some time in 1977 and he has to verify whether that is available. Counsel also brought to my notice that during examination of P.W.1 he has also stated that one copy has been given to the tenant at the time when the building was taken on rent. Only if the document is available with the custody of landlord. the document could be produced. It is further submitted even if the document is not produced on the basis of adverse inference alone the case of respondent cannot be denied. 12. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I feel that there is no merit in the argument of counsel for petitioner. It is admitted case that the entire premises which includes scheduled premises is used for non-residential purposes. Construction is also made only in that way. It is also not disputed fact that there is no kitchen, bathroom and bedroom, etc. There are nine shop rooms in the entire building and all the other tenants are utilising the same for business purpose only. It is not the case of tenant that the other tenants are also utilising the premises for residential purpose also. When the construction made is for non-residential purpose, it is for the tenant to prove that in spite of the nature of construction, he was allowed to occupy the premises for residential purpose also. 13. It is not the case of tenant that the other tenants are also utilising the premises for residential purpose also. When the construction made is for non-residential purpose, it is for the tenant to prove that in spite of the nature of construction, he was allowed to occupy the premises for residential purpose also. 13. Whether the building was let for residential or non-residential purpose can also be inferred from the other circumstances. If the tenant has immediately made use of the building for residence also after rental arrangement began and landlord also remained silent, an inference can be drawn that the tenancy was for residential purpose also. In this case, tenant was occupying a residential building which is opposite to the residence of landlord at Door No.70, Perumal North Ratna Street at Tirunelveli Junction. It is admitted by tenant himself. Tenancy arrangement in this case began in 1977. Landlord of Door No.70, Perumal North Ratha Street, Tirunelveli junction filed rent control petition for evicting tenant in R.C.O.P.No.103 of 1985. At least for a period of 9 years from 1977 tenant was making use of the scheduled premises only for the purpose of his business and he was residing elsewhere. An order of eviction was passed against tenant in R.C.O.P.No.103 of 1985. Ex.A-5 is the Judgment in that case. Exs.A-2 and A-3 are eviction petition and counter filed in that case. Only after eviction order was passed in R.C.O.P.No.103 of 1985, tenant has shifted his family to the scheduled premises. 14. According to landlord, tenant attempted to make use of the scheduled premises for residential purpose only on 28. 1987. There is absolutely no evidence in this case to show that from 1977 to 1987 tenant was residing in the scheduled premises. Tenant could have produced either voters’ list, ration card or other documents to show that from the inception of tenancy, he is residing with his family in the scheduled premises. One important fact that in to be considered is that there is no water connection to this building. .15. Why landlord says that only on 28. 1987 tenant began to occupy the building for the purpose of this residence also in that it was on that date an incident happened, which resulted in police complaint against landlord on the next date. .15. Why landlord says that only on 28. 1987 tenant began to occupy the building for the purpose of this residence also in that it was on that date an incident happened, which resulted in police complaint against landlord on the next date. Even though tenant said that landlord attempted to forcibly enter into the building and removed many articles belonging to him, it is admitted that the criminal complaint when against the tenant. According to landlord, the misunderstanding arose only on that date when tenant attempted to make use of the premises for the purpose of his residence also. If the scheduled building is taken on rent for residential purpose also, there would have been some evidence that between 1977 to 1987 tenant has been making use of the building for the purpose of his business as well as residence. Taking into consideration these facts, the only conclusion that is possible is that the building was let only for non-residential purpose and the tenant by using the same for his residential purpose also has violated the terms of rental arrangement. Argument of learned counsel for petitioner that an adverse inference has to be drawn against landlord, therefore cannot be accepted. Even if an adverse inference can be drawn, that will not prove that the tenancy is for residential purpose also. Landlord has not stated that he is in possession of rental agreement but he has only said that he has to verify whether that is available. 16. The finding of the authorities below is based on evidence and the finding can never be said as illegal. improper of irregular. 17. The further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that he is not liable to be evicted on the ground that tenant has committed wilful default. Rental arrangement is admitted and even the rate of rent. But it is alleged that on 28. 1987 landlord forcibly attempted to enter into the building which resulted in police complaint on the next day. It is further submitted that landlord has also taken away all the rent receipts including the period for which eviction petition is filed. 18. It is admitted that the police complaint went against the tenant. Tenant himself has produced various receipts Exs.B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, B-11, etc. It is further submitted that landlord has also taken away all the rent receipts including the period for which eviction petition is filed. 18. It is admitted that the police complaint went against the tenant. Tenant himself has produced various receipts Exs.B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, B-11, etc. From the production of these documents it is clear that the allegation that landlord has taken away all the rent receipts cannot be believed. It is admitted that till 28. 1987 parties had no misunderstanding. If that be so, what is the necessity for landlord to forcibly enter into the building. When tenant himself produced receipts evidencing payment of rent, it is too much to think that landlord has removed all the records including rent receipts for the period from January, 1987 till February, 1988. Both the courts have held that it is the duty of tenant to prove that he has paid rent and he cannot merely blame landlord for the alleged breaking open of room on 28. 1987. 19. The subsequent conduct of tenant also shows that he is not in the habit of paying rent in time. Only when landlord moved application under Sec.11(4) of the Act, the tenant thought of depositing rent in court. Landlord had to file three applications under Sec.11(4) of the Act. Only when orders are passed III those applications. Tenant was in the habit of paying rent. .20. The finding that tenant has committed wilful default in paying rent is finding of fact and tenant has entire burden to prove the same that he has paid rent for the period. That burden has not been discharged by the tenant. Merely because police complaint is filed alleging that landlord has taken away all the rent receipts, it cannot be presumed that he has paid rent for the period from January, 1987 to February, 1988. 21. Inthe result, there is no merit in the revision petition and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs.