Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the order dated 09.07.1997 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Madurai in R.C.A.No.32 of 1993, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.1997 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai in R.C.A.No.32 of 1993, reversing the order dated 21.01.1993 of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Madurai Town in R.C.O.P.No.159 of 1986, dismissing the Eviction Petition filed by the Landlord. The Plaintiff / Landlord is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The demised premises relates to a Shop in Kuyavar Palayam, Madurai. The premises originally belonged to Seethalakshmi, under whom the Respondent had become a Tenant on a daily rent of Rs.6/- totally Rs.180/- per month for conducting Coffee Stall under the name and style of "Sumathi Coffee Nilayam". The Tenancy is Oral and as per the English Calendar month. The Respondent/Tenant was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent. The Petitioner – Son in law of Seethalakshmi is the Owner of the Premises. The Respondent/Tenant has not been paying the rent regularly and the Petitioner has requested him to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession. In July 1985, there was a Panchayat between the parties in the presence of one Jothilal in connection with the vacating the leased premises. At that time, the Respondent agreed to vacate the premises within six months and in the meanwhile, from July 1985, he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.250/- per mensum. But, the Respondent had again committed default in payment of rent. The Petitioner/Landlord has sent Ex.A.1-Notice dated 24.01.1986 stating the factum of Wilful Default and the delay in vacating the premises. The Respondent received the Notice on 29.01.1986 and has paid only a sum of Rs.1508.70 as against the total arrears of Rs.1928.70. The Respondent has not paid the balance of Rs.420/-. Thereafter, the Respondent again committed default in paying the rent from January 1986 to March 1986. Even after issuance of Ex.A.5-Notice dated 05.04.1986, the Respondent/Tenant has not paid the amount. The premises is also required for conducting Idli business by the Petitioner. Hence, the Petition was filed under Sec.10(2)(i) and Sec.10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. Even after issuance of Ex.A.5-Notice dated 05.04.1986, the Respondent/Tenant has not paid the amount. The premises is also required for conducting Idli business by the Petitioner. Hence, the Petition was filed under Sec.10(2)(i) and Sec.10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The Petition was resisted by the Respondent/Tenant denying any default in payment of rent. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner has no Title over the premises. After her death, all the legal heirs claimed the Rent from the Respondent/Tenant and hence he has stopped to pay the rent for some time. With the intervention of Jothilal, the Respondent/Tenant has paid the rent on 10.02.1986 and at that time, the Petitioner has calmly received the rent till the end of 1985. The Respondent / Tenant has been regularly paying the monthly rent and the Electricity Charges without default and hence, on the ground of Wilful Default and the Additional Accommodation, the Petitioner / Landlord is not entitled for Eviction. 4. In consideration of the evidence, learned Rent Controller found that the Respondent / Tenant has not paid the rent from January 1986 to March 1986 and that he is a persistent defaulter in paying the rent and ordered eviction on the ground of Wilful Default. Learned Rent Controller has further found that the Petitioner's Wife is doing Idli business and the premises is required for expanding the business for additional accommodation and ordered eviction under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act also. As against the order of the Rent Controller, the Respondent / Tenant has preferred an Appeal in R.C.A.No.32 of 1993 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai. 5. The Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller finding that there was no wilful default in payment of rent by the Respondent / Tenant. Referring to Ex.A.4-Rent Receipt Book and the entries thereon and Ex.A.6-Receipt dated 19.08.1986 issued by the Petitioner's Counsel for receipt of the rent after the Petition, the Appellate Authority found that there is no Wilful Default. Stating that there are no Chairs or Tables and other infrastructure to expand the Idli business, the Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the requirement for Additional Accommodation is not bonafide. It was further held that the relative hardship to the Tenant would be more comparing to the advantage to the Petitioner/Landlord. 6. Stating that there are no Chairs or Tables and other infrastructure to expand the Idli business, the Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the requirement for Additional Accommodation is not bonafide. It was further held that the relative hardship to the Tenant would be more comparing to the advantage to the Petitioner/Landlord. 6. Aggrieved over the order of the Appellate Authority, the Plaintiff / Landlord has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Landlord has submitted that the Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the conduct of the Respondent/Tenant being a persistent defaulter. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority erred in referring to Ex.A.4-Rent Receipt Book, which payment relates to the prior period – July 1985 to December 1985 and not to the Default period stated in the Petition. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority erred in referring to Ex.A.6(19.08.1986) which is subsequent to the Petition in recording a finding that there is no Wilful Default. Drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of the Respondent/ R.W.1, who has admitted about the non-payment of rent, it is submitted that the Appellate Authority has not taken note of the same. Submitting that the Appellate Authority erred in saying that Table and Chair are necessary at that point of time for expanding the Idli business, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Landlord prayed to set aside the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. 7. Countering the arguments, by placing reliance upon Exs.A.4 and A.6, learned counsel for the Respondent/Tenant has submitted that the arrears of rent had been paid under Exs.A.4 and A.6 and the Appellate Authority had rightly arrived at the conclusion that there is no Wilful Default in payment of rent and that the dismissal of the Eviction Petition does not suffer from any unreasonableness warranting interference. It is also contended that the Petitioner / Landlord has not established the bonafide requirement of the premises as Additional Accommodation for expanding the Idly business. 8. In consideration of submissions of both parties, Judgment of the Appellate Authority and other evidence and materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition: i.Whether the order of the Appellate Authority referring to Exs.A.4 and A.6 that there was no Wilful Default is erroneous and unreasonable? 8. In consideration of submissions of both parties, Judgment of the Appellate Authority and other evidence and materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition: i.Whether the order of the Appellate Authority referring to Exs.A.4 and A.6 that there was no Wilful Default is erroneous and unreasonable? ii.Whether the Appellate Authority was right in saying that the bonafide requirement for Additional Accommodation has not been established? 9. The demised premises relate to Door No.20-G,Old Kuyavar Palayam Road, Madurai – 9. Originally, the premises belonged to Seethalakshmi. Seethalakshmi had Three Daughters viz., Saratha, Rajalakshmi and Saraswathi. Seethalakshmi died in 1982. The Petitioner is Son-in-law of Seethalakshmi. The Landlord – Tenancy relationship with Seethalakshmi is not in dispute. The Tenancy is according to English Calendar month and the rent is payable at Rs.6/- per day totalling Rs.180/- per month. 10. As per the Petition, the Default period is from January 1986 to March 1986. According to the Revision Petitioner / Landlord, the Respondent / Tenant was a chronic Defaulter in payment of rent and also in paying the Electricity Charges for the consumption by him. Previously, between July 1985 and December 1985, the Respondent / Tenant has not paid the rent. In July 1985, there was a Panchayat in the presence of one Jothilal – a Corporation Council Member. It is stated that in the Panchayat, the Respondent / Tenant has agreed to vacate the premises within six months and also agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from July 1985 to December 1985. The Default is alleged for two spells of time: /from 15.07.1985 to December 1985; /January 1986 to March 1986. 11. In his evidence, P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the non-payment of rent by the Respondent/Tenant. His version is also supported by Ex.A.4 – Rent Receipt Book and also the admission by Respondent/Tenant. The Appellate Authority was obstinate in disbelieving the evidence adduced by the Landlord. The Appellate Authority justified all the delayed payments on the ground that the arrears of rent had been paid after the issuance of Notice, saying after the arrears of rent had been paid, the default is made good. The unreasonableness in appreciation of evidence warrants re-appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. 12. As noted earlier, the first spell of default is from 15.07.1985 to December 1985. The unreasonableness in appreciation of evidence warrants re-appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. 12. As noted earlier, the first spell of default is from 15.07.1985 to December 1985. The Respondent/Tenant has not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month as agreed by him in the Panchayat held in the presence of one Jothilal. Ex.A.1-Notice was issued on 24.01.1986. In February 1986, a total amount of Rs.1928.70 was the arrears. As against the same, on 10.02.1986, the Respondent/Tenant has paid Rs.1508.70. There was arrears of rent of Rs.420/-. The entries of arrears of payment is shown in Ex.A.4 – Receipt of Rent Note Book maintained by the Landlord. Copiously extracting from the entries made in Ex.A.4 – Receipt of Rent Note Book maintained by the Landlord, the Appellate Authority found that the arrears of rent was paid and that only a balance of Rs.420/- was due towards the Electricity charges. Two aspects are to be pointed out. First of all, July 1985 to December 1985 is not the relevant period of default alleged in the Petition. It has only been produced to show the conduct of the Respondent/Tenant who was persistent in default. Secondly, the Tenancy is as per the English Calendar month and the rent is payable every day. The Tenant was not right in accumulating the rent and paying it in one lump sum. While so, the Appellate Authority erred in not taking note of the conduct of the Respondent/Tenant in not paying the rent as per the terms of the Agreement of Lease. 13. In fact, even the Tenant himself has admitted that he has not paid the rent from August 1985. Even in his Chief-examination, the Tenant has stated: "....31/07/1985 tiu fil thlif rhpahf fl;oa[s;nsd;/ gpd;g[ vdf;F cly;epiy rhpapy;iy/ fil elj;jtpy;iy/ ehd; ,y;yhj rkaj;jpy; filia ghh;f;f Ms; ,y;iy/ vdnt filia g{l;o nghl;L tpl;nld;/ 4/ 5 khjk; fil K:o ,Ue;jJ/ 29/01/1986y; tf;fPy; nehl;O!; te;jJ/ kPz;Lk; n$hjpyhyplk; g";rhaj;jpw;F nghndd;/ thlifia Fiwf;fr; brhd;ndd;/ fil g{l;o fple;jjhy; mDrhpj;Jg; nghfr; brhd;ndd;/ kDjhuh; kWj;J tpl;lhh;/ gpd;g[ 1985 ork;gh; tiu thlif fl;ondd;/ gpd;g[ kDjhuh; thlifia th';f kWj;Jtpl;lhh;/ kDjhuh; tHf;F nghl;L tpl;nld;. th';f khl;nld; vd;W Twptpl;lhh;/..." 14. The Appellate Authority was under the misconception that the Tenant has paid the rent after the receipt of the notice and the explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of the Act is attracted and that there is no Wilful Default. th';f khl;nld; vd;W Twptpl;lhh;/..." 14. The Appellate Authority was under the misconception that the Tenant has paid the rent after the receipt of the notice and the explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of the Act is attracted and that there is no Wilful Default. The Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated that there are two notices. One is Ex.A.1 dated 24.01.1986. Another Notice Ex.A.5 issued on 05.04.1986. 15. After issuance of Ex.A.1-Notice, the Respondent / Tenant has approached the Mediator – Jothilal and paid the arrears of rent of Rs.1508.70 on 10.02.1986 as is seen from Paragraph 4 of the Counter: "...It is true that the Petitioner sent a notice on 24.01.1986. This Respondent received the Notice on 29.01.1986 and met the said Jothilal along with this Notice and brought him to speak with this Petitioner on 10.02.1986. At that time, the Petitioner calmly received the balance rent till the end of 1985...." The clear averments in the Counter Statement stating that the payment of arrears of rent of Rs.1508.70 on 10.02.1986 was towards the earlier spell of time was not taken note by the Appellate Authority. 16. As on 10.02.1986, there was arrears of rent of Rs.420/-. The Appellate Authority was of the view that the amount of Rs.420/- was only in arrears towards Electricity Charges. No doubt, the rent does not include the charges for the Electricity. But, on that ground, it cannot be said that there was no default. As pointed out earlier, the period between July 1985 to December 1985 is not the relevant period. Exs.A.1 and A.4 had been produced only to show that the Respondent / Tenant has been a chronic defaulter even during the prior spell of time. 17. January 1986 to March 1986 is the relevant period of Default alleged in the Petition. Certain dates are relevant to be noted: - Ex.A.5 Notice Issued ..... 05.04.1986 R.C.O.P.No.159 of 1986 filed on ..... 11.04.1986 As per Ex.A.6 arrears paid on ..... 19.08.1986 Admittedly, after receipt of Ex.A.5 – Notice, the Respondent / Tenant has not paid the rent. The Respondent / Tenant himself has admitted that he has not paid the rent from January 1986 and has stated that he has not opened the shop from 1986 since he was unwell. 11.04.1986 As per Ex.A.6 arrears paid on ..... 19.08.1986 Admittedly, after receipt of Ex.A.5 – Notice, the Respondent / Tenant has not paid the rent. The Respondent / Tenant himself has admitted that he has not paid the rent from January 1986 and has stated that he has not opened the shop from 1986 since he was unwell. In his Cross-examination, the Respondent / Tenant stated, "...1986 $dthp Kjy; vdf;F cly; rhpapy;yhjjhy; ehd; filia jpwf;ftpy;iy/ mjdhy; thlif jutpy;iy/ 4 khjk; cly;epiy rhpapy;yhky; ,Ue;jJ/ fhypy; g[z; ,Ue;jJ/..." 18. Non-opening of the shop and non-payment of rent from January 1986 to March 1986 and non-payment of arrears of Rs.420/- clearly amount to Wilful Default. Even after receipt of Ex.A.5-Notice, the Respondent / Tenant has not paid the rent. When the Eviction Petition was pending on 19.08.1986, the amount of Rs.1250/- was paid to the counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord, who has received the rental arrears (As per Ex.A.6) without prejudice to the contentions in the Eviction Petition. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has erred in saying that the rent for the relevant period – January 1986 to March 1986 had been paid and the Default is made good and that there is no Wilful Default. Equally, the Appellate Authority erred in saying that there is no Wilful Default because of the inability of the Respondent / Tenant to pay the rent on account of his illness. 19. The payment of arrears of rent after the filing of the Application for Eviction would not take away the Wilful Default committed by the Respondent/Tenant where the Tenant has committed default in not paying the rent on the due date and then pays the amount after the filing of the Eviction Petition. It is nothing but Wilful Default. 20. Seeking to justify the non-payment of rent within the time, the Respondent/Tenant has also alleged that after the death of Seethalakshmi, her Three Daughters viz., Saratha, Rajalakshmi and Saraswathi have been demanding the payment of rent to be made to them and since several persons were asking for rent, he was not in a position to pay the rent to any particular person. This contention is contradictory to the plea put forth by the Respondent / Tenant. This contention is contradictory to the plea put forth by the Respondent / Tenant. Even according to the Respondent/Tenant, there was a Panchayat in July 1985 in the presence of one Jothilal and at that time, he has agreed to pay the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month to the Petitioner. Having participated in the Panchayat in the presence of Jothilal and having agreed to pay the rent to the Petitioner/Landlord, it is not open to the Respondent/Tenant to dispute the right of the Petitioner to receive the rent. 21. Broadly looking at the matter, this is a clear case of Wilful Default as recorded by the learned Rent Controller. The Respondent/Tenant was persistent in defaulting the payment of rent. It is unable to comprehend why such persistent default has not been accepted by the Appellate Authority. The finding of the Appellate Authority that there is no Wilful Default is erroneous and the same is to be reversed. 22. The demised premises is part of the Building where the Petitioner / Landlord's Family is carrying on Idli Business. According to the Petitioner/Landlord, the premises is required for Additional Accommodation for expanding the Idli Business, which the family is doing. Even in the Notices – Exs.A.1 and A.4 sent to the Respondent, the requirement for Additional Accommodation for running the Idli business is clearly stated. In reply to Ex.A.1-Notice, the Respondent / Tenant has not denied the running of the Idli business. In his Cross-examination, the Respondent / R.W.1 has admitted that the family of the Petitioner/Landlord is running the Idli business. In reference to the evidence of the Petitioner/Landlord, the Rent Controller ordered Eviction on the ground of requirement of Additional Accommodation for running the Idli business. The Rent Controller has also found that the requirement of Additional Accommodation is bonafide. 23. During the Trial, the Respondent/Tenant has alleged that the requirement for Additional Accommodation is not bonafide. In his Cross-examination, R.W.1 has stated "....kDjhuh; thriy xl;o xU jpz;iz cs;sJ/ jpz;izapy; cl;fhh;e;J ahUk; rhg;gpLtjpy;iy/ kDjhuhpd; kidtp ,l;yp RLk;/ ,l;ypia th';fpj;jhd; nghthh;fs;...." R.W.2 has stated that the Petitioner / Landlord is working as Accountant in another firm "Rising Sun Coffee Works". The Appellate Authority has discarded the version of the Petitioner / Landlord stating that the Petitioner / Landlord is working only as Accountant in "Rising Sun Coffee Works" and that he was not running Idli business. The Appellate Authority has discarded the version of the Petitioner / Landlord stating that the Petitioner / Landlord is working only as Accountant in "Rising Sun Coffee Works" and that he was not running Idli business. In view of clear admission of R.W.1 that the Petitioner's wife is running Idli business, the Appellate Authority was not right in saying that the Petitioner was not running Idli business. The Wife and the Petitioner's family were running the Idli business. Admittedly, it is being run in pial. Quite reasonably, it being not a pucca shop, the Petitioner / Landlord requires the demised premises. The requirement for additional accommodation is bonafide and no motive could be attributed. The reason assigned by the Appellate Authority that the Petitioner / Landlord working in the Coffee Stall and the requirement is not bonafide cannot be endorsed with. It is common experience that if one of the family members runs the Idli business, the house hold members assist the same during their leisure time. The Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the evidence particularly the admission of R.W.1 that the Petitioner's Wife is running Idli business in pial. 24. The requirement of the demised premises as Additional Accommodation for running the Idly business was not accepted by the Appellate Authority on the ground that there was no infrastructure like Tables, Chairs and Grinder for expanding the business. It is unreasonable to expect exhibition of furniture, Grinder and other infrastructure for requiring the premises. The infrastructure like Table and Chair is concomitant in expanding the business, which could be acquired once the premises is available. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority in refusing to order Eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is puerile and is to be set aside. 25. One of the grounds for declining the Eviction on the ground of Additional Accommodation is "relative hardship to the Tenant" would be more. The relative Hardship is to be determined depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As soon as the Landlord has established the bonafide requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation and as the Additional Accommodation, the burden of proving that greater hardship by order of Eviction than by refusing it is upon the Tenant. The Tenant has not adduced any evidence that a greater hardship would be caused to him by passing the order of Eviction. The Tenant has not adduced any evidence that a greater hardship would be caused to him by passing the order of Eviction. In fact, the Tenant has himself closed the shop because of his health condition. Having let out the premises to a Tenant, the family of the Petitioner / Landlord cannot be expected to run the business in the pial or in the Street. The finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that there would be greater hardship caused to the Tenant is not based on the materials on record. 26. Where the findings of the Appellate Authority are perverse and improper, it is open to the Court of Revision to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a different conclusion. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority is perverse and unreasonable and cannot be sustained. The order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed. 27. For the foregoing reasons, setting aside the order dated 09.07.1997 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai in R.C.A.No.32 of 1993, this Revision Petition is allowed. Eviction order passed by the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Madurai Town in R.C.O.P.No.159 of 1986 (dated 21.01.1993) is restored. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Two months' time from the date of this order is granted to the Respondents / Tenants for vacating and handing over vacant possession to the Petitioner / Landlord.