Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition, under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Eviction Order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai dated 05.02.2004 passed in R.C.A.No.38 of 2002, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order of Eviction dated 05.02.2004 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in R.C.A.No.38 of 2002, reversing the Order of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town dated 31.10.2001 in R.C.O.P.No.306 of 1996. The Tenants are the Revision Petitioners. 2. The Tenanted Building relates to Door No.42-North Chithirai Street, Madurai. The Portion in the Ground Floor measuring East West ----- 15 feet North South ----- 10 feet. 3. The entire Building bearing Door No.42, North Chitrai Street, Madurai consisting of Ground Floor and First Floor belongs to M.Sundararajan and M.Balakrishnan who are Brothers. They jointly filed an Eviction Petition against Tenant P.Sadasiva Nair, Father of the Petitioners herein, in a portion in Ground Floor of the said Building, on the grounds of wilful default and different user {under Sec.10 (2)(1) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")} . The learned Rent Controller dismissed the Eviction Petition on 31.10.2001 holding that there is no wilful default. After dismissal of the said Eviction Petition, the said M.Balakrishnan died intestate on 21.03.2002, survived by his Wife Nagalakshmi and his Daughters Senthilkumari and Rajarajeswari as legal heirs. Therefore, the said Sundararajan and the legal heirs of the Deceased M.Balakrishnan filed R.C.A.No.38 of 2002, against the Judgment and Order passed by the Rent Controller against the Petitioners' Father P.Sadasiva Nair. The Appeal was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai. After disposal of the Appeal in R.C.A.No.38 of 2002, the Tenant P.Sadasiva Nair died on 13.04.2004, leaving behind his Sons viz., S.Udayakumar and S.Senthilkumar as his Legal Heirs, who are the Revision Petitioners herein. The Legal Representatives of the Deceased – Tenant – P.Sadasiva Nair have filed this Civil Revision Petition. 4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as Revision Petitioners / Tenants and Respondents / Landlords. 5. Case of the Landlords is that for running Hotel Business under the name and style of "Sivasakthi Bhavan Coffee Nilayam", Sadhasiva Nair has become Tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.700/-. The rent payable is as per the Tamil Calendar month. 6. 4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as Revision Petitioners / Tenants and Respondents / Landlords. 5. Case of the Landlords is that for running Hotel Business under the name and style of "Sivasakthi Bhavan Coffee Nilayam", Sadhasiva Nair has become Tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.700/-. The rent payable is as per the Tamil Calendar month. 6. R.C.O.P.No.94 of 1992:- The Landlords have filed this Petition requiring the Building for demolition and reconstruction. R.C.O.P.No.210 of 1995:- This Petition was filed by the Landlords for fixation of fair rent. R.C.O.P.No.306 of 1995:- This Petition has been filed for eviction of the Tenants on two grounds viz., (i) Under Sec.10 (2)(1) of the Act – that the Tenant has paid the rent only upto the end of Chitrai i.e. 14.05.1995 (corresponding to April-May 1995) and he committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the month of Vaikasi from 15.05.1995 and that the Tenant has not paid the rent and has committed wilful default. (ii) Under Sec.10 (2)(ii)(b) of the Act – that without consent of the Landlord, the Tenant has converted user of the premises by switching over the business from Hotel Business to run a Readymade Textile under the name and style of "Sivasakthi Textiles and Readymades". 7. The Tenant – Sadhasiva Nair has filed the Counter Statement denying non payment of rent and wilful default. According to the Tenant, he has tendered the rent to the Landlord, who refused to receive it. Hence, Money Order was sent on 11.07.1995, which was also refused by the Landlord. Hence, the Tenant has issued a notice on 20.07.1995 to the Landlord to specify a Bank into which rents may be deposited. The Landlord sent a reply dated 26.07.1995. The rents sent by the Tenant for the month of Vaikasi and Ani of Yuva Year by Money Order was also refused. When the Tenant has paid the rent in person on 31.08.1995, the Landlord has used filthy language and scolded the Tenant. Because of the indifference attitude of the Landlord, has been depositing the rent to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.306 of 1996. It is the further case of the Tenant that there was no agreement to conduct Hotel Business. The Building was let out for non-residential purposes and hence, the Tenant is at liberty to use the premises for any business purpose. Because of the indifference attitude of the Landlord, has been depositing the rent to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.306 of 1996. It is the further case of the Tenant that there was no agreement to conduct Hotel Business. The Building was let out for non-residential purposes and hence, the Tenant is at liberty to use the premises for any business purpose. There was no agreement, restriction or prohibition from using the building for running the readymade shop. 8. Before the Rent Controller, the parties have adduced evidence. Onbehalf of the Landlords, the First Petitioner was examined as P.W.1. Onbehalf of the Tenants, one Udayakumar was examined. Onbehalf of the Landlords, Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked; onbehalf of the Tenants Exs.R.1 to R.18 were marked. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Rent Controller found that there is no wilful default in the payment of rent. Finding that there was no act of wilful default, the Rent Controller has dismissed the petition by order dated 31.10.2001. Learned Rent Controller has not recorded a definite finding regarding conversion of the premises by the Tenant. 9. The Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai has reversed the order of Rent Controller finding that the Tenant has committed default in payment of rent. Pointing out the non-payment of rent even after filing of the Petition for eviction, the Appellate Authority found that there is wilful default. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has also accepted the case of the Landlords that the Revision Petitioners have converted the business to different user in running the Readymade Stores and ordered eviction on the grounds under Sections Sec.10 (2)(1) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved over the order of Eviction, the Revision Petitioners / Tenants have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 10. Assailing the order of Rent Control Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners / Tenants submitted that mere casual delay in non-payment of rent would not amount to wilful default. It is further submitted that the Tenant / Sadhasiva Nair could not pay the rent because of pre mature death of his son and that the Tenant had gone to Kerala, which aspect was not properly appreciated by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in PRATAP RAI TANWANI AND ANOTHER ..VS.. It is further submitted that the Tenant / Sadhasiva Nair could not pay the rent because of pre mature death of his son and that the Tenant had gone to Kerala, which aspect was not properly appreciated by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in PRATAP RAI TANWANI AND ANOTHER ..VS.. UTTAM CHAND AND ANOTHER ( 2004 (8) S.C.C. 490 ), learned counsel has submitted that the matter ought to have been decided as on the date of petition and that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has erred in taking note of the subsequent delay in payment of the rent. Submitting that the subsequent events cannot be taken as a factor to conclude that there had been wilful default, learned counsel has submitted that the Court ought to have moulded the relief in properly considering the reasons stated by the Tenant in the light of the earlier Rent Control Petitions filed by the Landlords for fixation of fair rent and for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. 11. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondents / Landlords has submitted that merely because the default in payment of rent is for a short period, it cannot be held "not wilful default". Submitting that when the Tenant has not discharged the statutory obligations in paying the amount within the stipulated period, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the indifferent conduct of the Tenant in not paying the rent even during the pendency of the Rent Control proceedings. Pointing out that the arrears of rent even during the pendency of the rent control proceedings, learned counsel has submitted that there is no reason for reversing the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default. 12. Placing much reliance upon Ex.P.11, which stipulates the user of the business for running Coffee and Tea Stall, learned counsel has taken serious objection for the admissibility of Ex.R.1-Rent Agreement produced by the Tenant. Submitting that Ex.R.1 is the Rent Agreement for three years, learned counsel has submitted that Ex.R.1 requires registration and that it cannot be received as evidence in view of its non-registration. Pointing out the conduct of the Tenant in running the Coffee and Tea Stall in the tenanted building for nearly 40 years, learned counsel has submitted that by his conduct the Tenant is estopped from carrying on any other business. Pointing out the conduct of the Tenant in running the Coffee and Tea Stall in the tenanted building for nearly 40 years, learned counsel has submitted that by his conduct the Tenant is estopped from carrying on any other business. In support of his contention, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Sec.114 and 115 of Indian Evidence Act. 13. Upon consideration of the submissions of both parties, order of Rent Control Appellate Authority and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Revision Petition: (i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the wilful default (under Sec.10 (2)(i) of the Act) and different user (under Sec.10 (2)(ii)(b) of the Act) is proved by the Respondents / Landlords? (ii) Whether the findings and order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority suffer from any erroneous approach and perversity warranting interference? 14. Admittedly, the Respondents are Landlords (Legal representatives of the Landlords) of the tenanted building – Door No.42, North Chitrai Street, Madurai. The demised premises is a non-residential building let out to Revision Petitioners / Tenants. At the time of filing of the Petition, the monthly rent has been Rs.750/- per month. Ex.P.11 is the unregistered Rent Agreement dated 16.12.1955 between the Tenant – Sadhasiva Nair and Vaduvammal, the Mother of the Landlords viz., Sundararajan and his Brother – Balakrishnan, who were then Minors. As per Ex.P.11 dated 1st Margazhi 1955, the rent is payable on the fifth of succeeding Tamil month. The relevant recital in Ex.P.11 reads as "....khjk; xd;Wf;F thlif Ugha; 20-? Ugha; ,UgJ tPjk; 2tJ egh; thliff;F xg;g[f;bfhz;L khjh khjk; thlifia mLj;j khjk; 5e;njjpf;Fs; 1tJ eghplk; 2tJ egh; brYj;jp urPJ bgw;Wf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ vd;Wk;..." Thus, in the recitals in the Rent Agreement, it is made clear that the Rent is payable by the fifth of succeeding Tamil month. In other words, the rent payable for Panguni is payable by Chitrai fifth i.e. payable before third week of April. 15. According to the Landlords, the Tenants committed wilful default. In the Petition, wilful default has been alleged that the Respondent / Tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from First Vaikasi of Yuva Tamil year (15.05.1995). In other words, the rent payable for Panguni is payable by Chitrai fifth i.e. payable before third week of April. 15. According to the Landlords, the Tenants committed wilful default. In the Petition, wilful default has been alleged that the Respondent / Tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from First Vaikasi of Yuva Tamil year (15.05.1995). In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Petition, wilful default has been clearly averred stating that the Respondent paid the Rent till the end of Chitrai of Yuva Tamil Year 14.05.1995....Thereafter, the Respondent neither tendered nor paid the Rent payable by him.....The Respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent from first Vaikasi of Yuva Tamil Year... and that it is a clear case of wilful default. The contention of the Landlords is that even during the pendency of the eviction petition, the Tenant has not paid the rent payable by him, which amounts to clear case of wilful default. 16. The Tenant has denied non-payment of rent / wilful default. According to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant, the Landlord refused to receive the rent and so, the Money Order was sent on 11.07.1995, which was refused. Hence, the Tenant has sent Ex.P.2-Notice dated 20.07.1995 calling upon the Landlord to specify a Bank in which the Rent shall be deposited for which, Ex.P.3 (dated 26.07.1995) reply was sent by the Landlord. When the rents were sent by Money Order for the months of Vaikasi and Ani, the Respondents refused to receive the rent and also refused to receive the same when tendered in person. Denying the wilful default, onbehalf of the Tenants, it is contended that the defaulted period (even as alleged by the Landlords is only for two months from 15.05.1995 to 14.07.1995) and the non-payment of rent for such short period cannot be considered to be wilful default in the payment of rent especially, when the Revision Petitioner / Tenant had taken a specific stand that the Rent was tendered in person on 07.07.1995, which was refused by the Landlords and the Money Order sent on 11.07.1995 was also refused by the Landlords. It is the further contention of the Tenant that before ever the Tenant could take the proceedings for filing the Petition for deposit of rent under Sec.8(5) of the Act, the Landlords hurriedly filed the Eviction Petition on 18.08.1995. It is the further contention of the Tenant that before ever the Tenant could take the proceedings for filing the Petition for deposit of rent under Sec.8(5) of the Act, the Landlords hurriedly filed the Eviction Petition on 18.08.1995. It is the further contention of the Tenant that Ex.P.3-Notice was sent by Landlord on 26.07.1995 and the Petition was filed on 18.08.1995 even before the expiry of two months and that there cannot be wilful default. In support of his contention, onbehalf of the Tenant, Proviso to Sec.10 (2)(i) of the Act is invoked. 17. The contention of the Revision Petitioners / Tenants was accepted by the Rent Controller. In the view of the Rent Controller, the Rents sent by the Tenant for the month of Vaikasi and Ani of Yuva year was deliberately not received by the Landlord. Pointing out the filing of R.C.O.P.No.94 of 1992, learned Rent Controller found that the main intention of the Landlord is only to evict the Tenant. Further, learned Rent Controller was also of the view that the Landlords refused to receive the rent with the sole intention of evicting the Tenant and that there was no bonafide in their refusal to receive the amount and found that there was no wilful default. Referring to Ex.P.1 – Rent Receipt Book and the date of payment of rent, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller finding that the rent was not paid within the stipulated time and that there was wilful default. 18. The main point that arises for consideration is whether the Tenant / Sadhasiva Nair has committed wilful default in payment of rent. The burden lies upon the Tenant to prove that there is regular payment of rent and that there was no wilful default. From the rent receipts in Ex.P.1, it is seen from the following that the Tenant has not paid the rent within the stipulated time of the fifth of succeeding Tamil Month. Thus, it is clear that as per Ex.P.11-Agreement, the Tenant has not paid the Rent within the stipulated time and thereby committed wilful default. 19. From the evidence, it is made clear that the Tenant has not paid the rent even after filing of the Petition. Thus, it is clear that as per Ex.P.11-Agreement, the Tenant has not paid the Rent within the stipulated time and thereby committed wilful default. 19. From the evidence, it is made clear that the Tenant has not paid the rent even after filing of the Petition. During the pendency of the Rent Control Petition, the Landlords have filed an Application in I.A.No.387 of 1996 U/s.11(4) of the Act claiming rental arrears of Rs.9750/- being the arrears of rent for 13 months from First Adi Yuva year to the end of Adi, Dadu Tamil year. The Tenant has paid the rental arrears only pursuant to the orders passed by the Rent Controller. In fact, in his evidence, the Tenant himself has admitted non-payment of rent. In his evidence, he has stated that he is aged 72 years and that he lost his son at his younger age and that he was pre-occupied with other work and hence, could not pay the rent within the stipulated time. Non-payment of rent within the stipulated time clearly amounts to wilful default. 20. The main contention of the Tenant is that the rent for Vaikasi and Ani was tendered in person on 07.07.1995 and when refused by the Landlords, it was sent by Money Order on 11.07.1995, which was also refused by the Landlords. Further contention of the Tenant is that he has sent Ex.P.2-Notice dated 20.07.1995, calling upon the Landlords to specify the Bank, in which the rents shall be deposited, which was followed by the Reply Notice – Ex.P.3 dated 26.07.1995. Though in Ex.P.2 it is stated that rent has been sent by Money Order, no documents have been produced evidencing the sending of rent by Money Order. No material has been produced for sending the money order for the rent payable for the month of Ani. Only Ex.R.5-Money Order Receipt dated 21.09.1995 has been produced. Excepting the evidence of R.W.1, no other evidence has been adduced showing the sending of Rent by Money Order or tendered in person. For the month of Chitrai, Vaikasi and Ani of Yuva Year, the rent has not been paid within the stipulated time; but paid late. Though the Tenant has paid the rent subsequently, the default committed by him cannot be rectified. For the month of Chitrai, Vaikasi and Ani of Yuva Year, the rent has not been paid within the stipulated time; but paid late. Though the Tenant has paid the rent subsequently, the default committed by him cannot be rectified. It cannot be contended that merely because the default is only for two months, it is to be straight away held that the default is not wilful. Viewing the matter from the date of payment of rent (as per Ex.P.1) clearly there is deliberate non-payment of rent within the stipulated time which amounts to wilful default in payment of rent. 21. According to the Tenant, the rent was tendered in person, which was refused to be received by the Landlord. It is to be noted that the relationship of the Landlord and Tenant has already been strained. Already a petition was filed under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act in R.C.O.P.No.94 of 1992 for demolition and reconstruction. In view of the strained relationship between the Landlord and Tenant, the Tenant, who has been contesting R.C.O.P.No.94 of 1992 must have been aware of the consequences of non-payment of rent. If the Landlords have actually refused to receive the rent, the Tenant was duty bound to deposit the rent in the Bank or before the Rent Controller by taking appropriate steps. The Tenant has not remitted the rent even after knowing the consequences of non-payment of rent. Hence, the default committed by the Tenant is rightly held to be wilful. 22. Deliberate wilful default in paying the rent is also evident from the conduct of the Tenant in not paying the arrears of rent during the pendency of the Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and this Revision Petition before High Court. From the materials on record, it is seen that before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Landlords have filed a Memo dated 12.01.2004 stating the details of arrears of rent and claiming a sum of Rs.11,250/- being the arrears of rent for 15 months. The Appellate Authority has referred to the conduct of the Tenant in not paying the arrears of rent during the pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of this Revision Petition (C.R.P (NPD) No.1538 of 2004), the Landlords have filed V.C.M.P.No.17 of 2005 to vacate the stay granted by this Court in C.M.P.No.12298 of 2004. The Appellate Authority has referred to the conduct of the Tenant in not paying the arrears of rent during the pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of this Revision Petition (C.R.P (NPD) No.1538 of 2004), the Landlords have filed V.C.M.P.No.17 of 2005 to vacate the stay granted by this Court in C.M.P.No.12298 of 2004. In the stay petition, the Landlords have clearly stated about the arrears of rent for 11 months at Rs.8250/-. The Tenant has no right to accumulate the rent and pay it in lumpsum. Learned counsel for the Landlords have drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in B.ANRAJ PIPADA ..VS.. V.UMAYAL ( 1998 (3) L.W. 159 ) where eviction proceedings have been initiated on the ground of wilful default. In the said decision, it has been held that during pendency of eviction proceedings, one would expect the Tenant to pay the rent regularly at least after initiation of the proceedings. In this case, conduct of the Tenant in not paying the rent regularly even during the pendency of the proceedings clearly amounts to wilful default. The Tenant has waited till the filing of the petition in I.A.No.387 of 1996 and filing of Memo before the Rent Control Appellate Authority to pay the rental arrears, which clearly amounts to wilful default. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the findings of the Rent Controller does not suffer from any unreasonableness warranting interference. 23. Learned counsel for the Tenant has drawn the attention of the Court to the decisions reported in M/S. CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES ..VS.. S.MOOSA AND OTHERS (2000 (1) C.T.C. 742) and C. CHANDRAMOHAN ..VS.. SENKOTTIAN (DEAD) AND OTHERS (2000 (1) C.T.C. 239 in support of his contention that the eviction petition should contain averments with regard to specific period during which the Tenant has committed default in payment of rent. Those decisions cannot be applied to the case in hand since the Landlord has clearly averred in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Petition that the Tenant has neither tendered nor paid the rent from First Vaikasi of Yuva Tamil year and the subsequent period. 24. Those decisions cannot be applied to the case in hand since the Landlord has clearly averred in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Petition that the Tenant has neither tendered nor paid the rent from First Vaikasi of Yuva Tamil year and the subsequent period. 24. Contending that the non-payment of rent by the Tenant during the pendency of the proceedings cannot be taken note of to arrive at the finding whether there had been wilful default, learned counsel for the Tenant has relied upon the decision reported in PRATAP RAI TANWANI AND ANOTHER ..VS.. UTTAM CHAND AND ANOTHER ( 2004 (8) S.C.C. 490 ). The said case arises on the petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. Referring to the decision in RAMESH KUMAR ..VS.. KESHO RAM (1992 SUPP(2) S.C.C. 623), the Supreme Court has held, "... We cannot forget that while considering the bona fides of the need of the landlord the crucial date is the date of the petition. In RAMESH KUMAR ..VS.. KESHO RAM (1992 SUPP(2) S.C.C. 623) a two Judge Bench of this Court (M.N.Venkatachalia, J.,) as he then was and N.M.Kasliwal, J.) pointed out that the normal rule is that rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as they were when the lis commenced and the only exception is that the court is not precluded from moulding the reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations. What the learned Chief Justice observed therein is this : (S.C.C. pp.626-27, para 6) 6. The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But, this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a "Cautious cognizance" of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief...." The above case and decision deals with the eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of the Landlord. In a case of wilful default, the Tenant is normally expected to pay the rent atleast after filing of the Petition. In a case of wilful default, the Tenant is normally expected to pay the rent atleast after filing of the Petition. The above said decision that the matter has to be decided only as on the date of petition and not on subsequent event cannot be imported to the case in hand, which is filed on the ground of wilful default. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act is to be confirmed. 25. Different User – U/s.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act:- The Petition for eviction is also filed under Sec.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act on the ground that the building is used for different purpose. According to the Landlords, the tenanted building has been let out to the Tenant to carry on Coffee and Tea Stall by the Tenant. As per the Agreement of Lease, the Tenant was carrying on Hotel Business under the name and style of "Sivasakthi Bhavan Coffee Nilayam". Case of the Landlords is that the Tenant has been using the building other than the purpose for which it was leased with effect from 08.06.1995. Instead of running the Hotel business as agreed the Tenant is alleged to have been doing Textile Business under the name and style of "Sivasakthi Textiles and Readymade" with effect from 08.06.1995. It is further alleged that the Tenant has been using the building for a different purpose without the written consent of the Landlord and hence, the Tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of different user. 26. Resisting the Petition for eviction on the ground of different user, the Revision Petitioner / Tenant have contended that there has been no agreement to conduct hotel business and that the building has been let out for non-residential purpose and that the Tenant has been at liberty to use the premises for non-residential purpose. It is the further contention that there is no agreement or prohibition in using the premises for doing a particular business and therefore, the question of using the premises for different user does not arise. 27. In support of the contention that the Building has been leased for running Coffee Nilayam, the Landlords have produced Ex.P.11 (dated 16.12.1955) – unregistered Rent Agreement between the Tenant – Sadhasiva Nair and Vaduvammal, the Mother of the Landlords. 27. In support of the contention that the Building has been leased for running Coffee Nilayam, the Landlords have produced Ex.P.11 (dated 16.12.1955) – unregistered Rent Agreement between the Tenant – Sadhasiva Nair and Vaduvammal, the Mother of the Landlords. In the description of property in Ex.P.11, it is stated as follows: - "....kJiu lt[d; tlf;F rpj;jpiu tPjp nlhh; 42 ek;gh; filapy; 5tJ fil fhg;gp O !;lhy; itj;Jf;bfhs;s ntz;oaJ..." Thus, the original Lease Agreement – Ex.P.11 well supports the contention of the Landlords that there is a stipulation to use the demised building only for running Coffee / Tea stall. 28. Countering the contention of the Landlords, onbehalf of the Tenant, Ex.R.1 – Unregistered Lease Agreement (dated 12.01.1959) has been produced. Ex.R.1 was for a period of three years. The description of Properties in Ex.R.1 reads as follows:- "....kJiu lt[d; tlf;F rpj;jpiu tPjp nlhh; 42 ek;gh; filapy; 4tJ 5tJ fil ,uz;L kl;Lk;..." Of course, in the description of Property in Ex.R.1, there is no stipulation to use the premises for running of Coffee and Tea Stall. On the strength of Ex.R.1, onbehalf of the Tenant, it is contended that there is no stipulation for restricted user of the premises – only for the purpose of running Coffee and Tea Stall. This contention of the Tenant does not merit acceptance. It is to be noted that Ex.R.1 (dated 12.01.1959) is only for a period of three years. Thereafter, there is no renewed lease agreement. Though there is no mention of Coffee or Tea Stall in the description of properties in Ex.R.1, the description of property in Ex.R.1 is to be read along with the recitals in Original Lease Agreement – Ex.P.11. It is relevant to note that after Ex.R.1-Lease Agreement, the Tenant-Sadhasiva Nair was only doing business in Coffee and Tea and doing the business under the name and style of "Sivasakthi Bhavan Coffee Nilayam". Ex.P.7 is the Invitation for opening of "Sivasakthi Javuli Readymade and Textiles" on 08.06.1995. Ex.P.8 is the Photograph showing the Board "Sivasakthi Javuli Readymade and Textiles". The premises had been put to different user only from June 1995. Thus, the Tenant has been doing the business in Coffee and Tea stall from 1955 to 1995 for nearly 40 years. Ex.P.7 is the Invitation for opening of "Sivasakthi Javuli Readymade and Textiles" on 08.06.1995. Ex.P.8 is the Photograph showing the Board "Sivasakthi Javuli Readymade and Textiles". The premises had been put to different user only from June 1995. Thus, the Tenant has been doing the business in Coffee and Tea stall from 1955 to 1995 for nearly 40 years. Learned counsel for the Landlord is right in urging the Court to draw an inference from the conduct of the Tenant in continuously doing the business in Coffee and Tea Stall for a long period of 40 years and that by his conduct, the Tenant intentionally caused the Landlord to believe that he has been using the building for the purpose for which it was leased out. 29. Earlier, the rent was received by the Landlords only for the the shop under the name "Sivasakthi Bhavan Coffee Nilayam". After the commencement of the business in Textile by the Tenant, the Tenant has paid the rent for Vaikasi and Ani under Receipts Nos.11 and 12 (Ex.P.1). In the back of the receipt Nos. 11 and 12, the Landlord viz., deceased Balakrishnan had received the rent subject to objection by making endorsement as "....epge;jida[ld; Ml;nrgid bjhptpj;J bgw;Wf; bfhs;sg;gl;oUf;fpwJ..." At no point of time, there has been consent of the Landlord for using the premises for a purpose other than it was leased. By his conduct, the Tenant has led the Landlord to believe that he has been using the Building only for the purpose of doing the business viz., Sivasakthi Bhavan Coffee Nilayam. The Tenant is estopped from contending that there is no restriction on the user of the building and that he has been at liberty to use the premises for running the Textiles. 30. Raising serious objection as to the admissibility of Ex.R.1, learned counsel for the Landlord has submitted elaborate arguments contending that Ex.R.1 is admissible in evidence since it is an unregistered Lease Agreement, which is for a period of three years. It is further contended that Ex.R.1 requires registration as per Sec.17(D) of the Registration Act and that the unregistered Lease Agreement cannot be received as evidence under Sec.49 (C) of the Registration Act. It is further submitted that the Rent Controller has erred in admitting Ex.R.1 as evidence. Ex.R.1 has already been admitted in evidence by the Rent Controller. It is further contended that Ex.R.1 requires registration as per Sec.17(D) of the Registration Act and that the unregistered Lease Agreement cannot be received as evidence under Sec.49 (C) of the Registration Act. It is further submitted that the Rent Controller has erred in admitting Ex.R.1 as evidence. Ex.R.1 has already been admitted in evidence by the Rent Controller. This contention raised as to the admissibility of Ex.R.1 at this Revision stage cannot be elaborately considered. 31. However, the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction on the ground of different user is to be confirmed for the following: (i) in the description of property in Ex.R.1, in running the business is to be read along with the description in Ex.P.11; (ii) for nearly 40 years, the Tenant has been doing Coffee/Tea stall business, naturally by his conduct the Tenant has led the Landlord to believe that he has been using the tenanted building for the purpose for which it was leased. (iii) On knowing that the building has been put to different use, the Landlords have rightly raised the objection in receiving the rent subject to objection. 32. In view of the description of the property stipulating the business for running Coffee and Tea Stall in the original rental agreement and that the Tenant has used the Tenanted building for Textile business, the Tenant is liable to be evicted. The finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, ordering eviction on the ground of different user is to be confirmed. 33. In exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Sec.25 of the Act, the High Court would be slow to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Authority. Unless there is unreasonableness or perversity in the appreciation of evidence, the High Court would not interfere with the findings recorded by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. There is no perversity or erroneous approach in appreciating the evidence and the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act – on the ground of wilful default and different user is to be confirmed. This Revision Petition has no merits and is bound to fail. 34. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act – on the ground of wilful default and different user is to be confirmed. This Revision Petition has no merits and is bound to fail. 34. Therefore, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in R.C.A.No.38 of 2002 dated 05.02.2004 (arising out of R.C.O.P.No.306 of 1995) is confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Two months time is granted to the Revision Petitioners / Tenants for vacating and handing over vacant possession of the Building to the Respondents / Landlords from the date of this order.