Judgment :- Challenging order of Eviction on the grounds of Owners Occupation and Wilful Default, Tenant has preferred these Revisions. 2. The following points arise for consideration in these Revision Petitions:- (1)Whether the order of eviction on the grounds of Wilful Default and Owners Occupation is perverse warranting interference? (2)Whether order of Appellate Authority reversing order of eviction passed by Rent Controller on the grounds of Sub-letting, Acts of Waste is to be interfered with notwithstanding non-filing of any Revision by Respondent/Landlord? 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in R.C.O.P.No.1399 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller (XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai). 4. 1. The tenanted premises is Flat No.2, Block No.A1,(Old No.98/3), Shanthi Colony, Chennai. The portion was let out to Respondent/Tenant in October 1998 purely for residential purposes. At the time of inception of tenancy, monthly rent was fixed at Rs.6000/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.6,615/- per month. Petitioner/Landlady represented by her General Power of Attorney filed Eviction Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1399 of 2001 under Sections 10(2)(i) (Wilful Default); 10(2)(ii)(a) (Subletting); 10(2)(ii)(b)(Different Use); 10(2)(iii) (Acts of Waste) and 10(3)(a)(i)(Owners Occupation) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act") against the Respondent and three other Respondents. The Respondent alone contested the matter before the Rent Controller and Respondents 2 to 4 (Sub-lessees) were set exparte after notice being served on them at the petition premises. 4. 2. Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of Owners Occupation, Subletting and Acts of Waste. Aggrieved by order of eviction, Respondent/Tenant has preferred Appeal. Aggrieved by dismissal of Petition on the grounds of Wilful Default and Different Use, Petitioner/Landlady has also preferred Appeal. By common order, the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) confirmed eviction on the ground of Owners Occupation. Appellate Authority held that Tenant has committed Wilful Default and eviction was ordered on the ground of Wilful Default also. Eviction ordered on the grounds of Subletting and Acts of Waste was reversed by the Appellate Authority, which is challenged in these Revisions. 5. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for Revision Petitioner/Tenant has contended that filing of Eviction Petition on five grounds alone will show the malafide. Eviction ordered on the grounds of Subletting and Acts of Waste was reversed by the Appellate Authority, which is challenged in these Revisions. 5. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for Revision Petitioner/Tenant has contended that filing of Eviction Petition on five grounds alone will show the malafide. It was further submitted that Landlady is aged 70 years and she is pursuing the matter only at the instance of Power of Attorney. Learned Counsel further submitted that Landlady being aged, needs to be taken care of by others and that there is no bonafide in requirement for Owners Occupation. .6. Learned Counsel for Respondent/Landlady has submitted that Landlady being a renowned Paediatrician bonafide requires premises for her own occupation and concurrent findings of Courts below ordering eviction on the ground of Owners Occupation cannot be interfered with. It was further submitted that Petition premises being occupied by several other sub-lessees the Appellate Authority ought not to have reversed the order of eviction on the ground of Subletting. Placing reliance upon the decisions reported in Durgai Ammal ..Vs.. R.T. Mani (1989 (1) L.W. 155) and Nalakath Sainuddin ..Vs.. Koorikadan Sulaiman (A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 2562), learned counsel for Respondent/Landlady has submitted that even without filing a separate C.R.P, Landlady is entitled to challenge the order of Appellate Authority reversing order of eviction on the ground of Subletting and Acts of Waste. .7. Owners Occupation (10(3)(a)(i) of the Act):- By concurrent findings, Courts below have ordered eviction on the ground of Owners Occupation. Landlady is a very renowned Paediatrician having served in eminent organisations like World Bank, UNICEF, WHO and various other Health Care Schemes. It is a matter of record that she is recipient of B.C.Roy National Award. P.W.1 – Power of Attorney, who is also Brother-in-law of Landlady has spoken about bonafide requirement of Landlady. 8. Tenant has denied Landladys claim stating that claim of Landlady is malafide and that she wants to sell tenanted premises. Tenant has also contended that at her old age, Landlady cannot reside in the petition premises without assistance. Landlady who is septuagenarian and a Spinster is residing with her Sister. Though Landlady is aged, her bonafide requirement for Owners Occupation cannot be doubted. Tenant has also contended that at her old age, Landlady cannot reside in the petition premises without assistance. Landlady who is septuagenarian and a Spinster is residing with her Sister. Though Landlady is aged, her bonafide requirement for Owners Occupation cannot be doubted. It is now well settled that when Application is filed under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) or 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and the requirements of the Provisions are satisfied, it is not for the Tenant to say that the property is suitable or not suitable to the petitioners requirement. Referring to the decisions reported in S.V.Janardanam and Another ..Vs.. Kivraj Sowkar and Two Others ( 2002 (2) C.T.C. 415 ) and Sarla Ahuja ..Vs.. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (1998 (III) C.T.C. 679), Rent Controller has held that requirement of Landlady is bonafide. When Landlady requires the building for own occupation, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour how she could adjust in the tenanted premises or how she could live alone without assistance. On the contention raised by Tenant, bonafide requirement cannot be doubted. Concurrent findings of Courts below ordering eviction on the grounds of Owners Occupation cannot be interfered with. .9. Wilful Default (10(2)(i) of the Act):- .There is no dispute that monthly rent is Rs.6615/-and Tenant has paid an advance of Rs.48,000/-. Default period is June 2001 to August 2001. Eviction Petition was filed on 07.09.2001. Finding that Rent for August 2001 could be paid till the end of September 2001 and that Default in payment of rent only for two months cannot amount to Wilful Default, Rent Controller declined order of eviction on the ground of Wilful Default. 10. Tenant has statutory duty to pay rent without any demand from the Landlord. Tenant has no right to accumulate rent and pay in lumpsum. As observed by Appellate Authority, rent for June and August 2001 were only paid later. Even after filing of R.C.O.P, Tenant was irregular in payment of rent, resulting in filing of Application under Sec.11(4) of the Act in M.P.No.695 of 2001. In the said Application, Tenant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,230/- being arrears of rent. Challenging that order, Tenant has filed R.C.A.No.234 of 2003. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed under Sec.11(4) of the Act. At that stage, Tenant has filed startling incorrect Memo that Landlady has passed away in January 2003. In the said Application, Tenant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,230/- being arrears of rent. Challenging that order, Tenant has filed R.C.A.No.234 of 2003. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed under Sec.11(4) of the Act. At that stage, Tenant has filed startling incorrect Memo that Landlady has passed away in January 2003. In Appeal, in the Petition filed under Sec.11(4) of the Act, the Appellate Authority summoned the Landlady and the Landlady with great difficulty appeared before the Court. Expressing disapproval on the conduct of the Tenant, Appellate Authority observed that the Respondent is awaiting for the death of the Landlady. The attitude of the Respondent is highly condemned. Only after dismissal of R.C.A.No.234 of 2003, Tenant has paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,32,230/- as arrears. It is stated that thereafter from April 2003, the Tenant has not paid the rent. When relationship between Landlord and Tenant was constrained and Eviction Petition being filed during pendency of Eviction Petition, Tenant is expected to pay rent regularly. In this case, conduct of Tenant clearly amounts to wilful default. 11. In the decision reported in B. Amraj Pipada ..Vs.. V. Umayal (1998 II M.L.J. 524) S.JAGADEESAN,J., has held that when the eviction proceedings have been initiated on the ground of Wilful Default, one would expect the Tenant to pay the rent regularly every month atleast after the initiation of the proceedings. When the Tenant has failed to pay the rent regularly even during the pendency of the proceedings, then there is no doubt that his conduct in paying the rent as he likes, will amount to Wilful Default. .12. Learned counsel for Landlady has submitted that even after filing present C.R.P, Tenant has not paid the rent regularly. He is said to have accumulated arrears of Rs.90,000/- on 112. 2006 leaving a balance of Rs.34,075/-. It is stated that after the matter was listed, the said amount was paid on 08.01.2007. Taking note of conduct of Tenant, Appellate Authority rightly ordered eviction on the ground of Wilful Default and the same is to be confirmed. .13. Subletting (10(2)(ii)(a)of the Act):- Contention of Landlady is that the Tenant has sublet the petition premises to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents and as such, they have obtained independent telephone connections. Rent Controller has accepted case of Subletting. .13. Subletting (10(2)(ii)(a)of the Act):- Contention of Landlady is that the Tenant has sublet the petition premises to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents and as such, they have obtained independent telephone connections. Rent Controller has accepted case of Subletting. Finding that sub tenants (Respondents 2 to 4 in the R.C.O.P) were served notice in the petition premises and that there are three independent telephone connections (Ex.R.2 in the names of sub tenants in the petition premises), Rent Controller held that Subletting had been proved. 14. Admittedly, Respondents 2 to 4 in the R.C.O.P were served Notice in the petition premises. Tenant has marked Ex.R.2 – Series comprising of Two Telephone Bills one B.S.N.L and other one Touchtel, which was obtained in 2004 after the inception of R.C.O.P. In his Reply Notice, R.W.1 had admitted putting up of STD-ISD-PCO Booth in the Petition premises. For functioning of STD-ISD-PCO booth, there ought to have been more than one telephone connection whereas Tenant has produced only one Bill. The existence of STD, ISD, PCO Booth is not explained. 15. It is stated that Petition premises is being occupied by several other Sub-lessees for commercial purpose. While the premises is being occupied by strangers, the Appellate Authority ought not to have interfered the ground of Subletting. Appellate Authority was not right in reversing order of Eviction on the ground of Subletting. 16. Relationship between Tenant and the Sub-tenant is within the special knowledge of either Tenant or Sub-tenant. Unless a Tenant satisfactorily explains the presence of the Sub-tenant in the premises, the Court is to draw inference in a case where an utter stranger is found in the premises running business. 17. Referring to the decision reported in Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Another ..Vs.. M/s. S. Chokosiri & CO., (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1845), in M. Shanmugam Vs Kannabiran and another ( 1996 (2) L.W. 322 ), this Court has held as follows:- "...If a stranger is in possession naturally an inference has to be drawn that he was allowed to occupy the building for monetary consideration. In case of sub lease, the arrangement is between the Tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. The Landlord is not a party to it. It is always a secret arrangement. The Court can draw certain inferences only from certain circumstances which alone come to the knowledge of the Landlord. In case of sub lease, the arrangement is between the Tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. The Landlord is not a party to it. It is always a secret arrangement. The Court can draw certain inferences only from certain circumstances which alone come to the knowledge of the Landlord. The initial burden which is on the Landlord will stand discharged when he proves those circumstances...." 18. Contending that without filing revision, Landlord can support order of eviction and at the same time dispute correctness of finding recorded in it whereby availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived, learned counsel for Respondent / Landlady placed reliance upon the decision reported in Durgai Ammal Vs R.T. Mani (1989 (1) L.W. 155) wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- "...S.25 says that the High Court may call for and examine the records of the appellate authority. Thus, it is conferred with the powers as High Court to look into the contents of the records, which would include the pleas raised, evidence adduced and decision arrived at, on each one of the grounds taken in ordering eviction of the tenant. In doing so, the High Court is enjoined to consider, whether order of eviction passed is permissible on the basis of any of the other grounds taken in the petition, which formed the foundation for the reliefs prayed for therein. Landlord having been permitted to initiate proceedings for eviction in a single petition, on more than one ground conceived of under the Act, and when they have been dealt with together and disposed of by a single order, and on landlord establishing any one of the grounds, and in which event the ultimate order would lead to the tenant being directed to deliver possession of the property and under S.25, when the High Court has to satisfy the tests about the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or decision, which is in order of eviction, and which could be obtained by proving any one of the many grounds as taken in the petition already filed; it cannot be held that the High Court would be exercising an appellate power by permitting the landlord to sustain the order on grounds already taken in the petition and which had been held against him, though ultimately he succeeded in the petition on one or some of the grounds taken by him. In the nature of powers conceived of under S.25, on a revision petition preferred by one of the parties to the proceedings, the entire proceeding is at large before the High Court, which could go into not only about the regularity of such proceedings, but on other aspects spelt out in S.25. In satisfying itself on these aspects, it had been conferred with revisional powers, wider than that of S.115 C.P.C and when one of the parties to the proceedings tries to jeopardise the order, the High Court gets the jurisdiction to look into the entirety of records...." 19. In considering the scope of Sections 20 and 11 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which is parimateria with Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Nalakath Sainuddin ..Vs.. Koorikadan Sulaiman (A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 2562) held as follows:- "...A Landlord who has succeeded in securing an order of eviction on one of the several grounds urged by him cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order. He cannot file a revision rather he can feel satisfied with the order. The person aggrieved is the tenant and in a revision preferred by the Tenant it is only just and equitable that the Landlord should be permitted to support the order of eviction by disputing correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned order whereby the availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived. Such a right has to be necessarily spelled out in favour of the Landlord who has succeeded from the Court below else there would be grave injustice. (Seetaram Vs. Smt. Ramabai (A.I.R. 1958 Madhya Pradesh 221); Gaddem Chinna Venkata Rao Vs Koralla Satyanarayana Murthy (A.I.R. 1943 Madras 698 (FB)) and K. Venkataramani Vs Araramuthan (A.I.R. 1982 MADRAS 36)- Approved)...." It is thus settled that Landlady without filing Revision can support order of eviction and at the same time disputing correctness of finding recorded in it whereby availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived. .20. Different User:- Contention of Landlady is that the Petition premises was let out for residential purpose, but the Tenant has converted the same for non-residential purpose. .20. Different User:- Contention of Landlady is that the Petition premises was let out for residential purpose, but the Tenant has converted the same for non-residential purpose. Tenant has contended that Landlady has consented to put up STD Booth and only after obtaining no objection from Landlady for conversion of Electricity Service from domestic tariff to commercial purpose, STD booth was put up and hence, there is no question of different user. Under Sec.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act eviction could be ordered where the Tenant without the written consent of the Landlord used the Building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. Admittedly, there is Written Lease Agreement evidencing terms and conditions of Lease. Without producing the Lease Agreement it cannot be concluded that premises was let out for residential purpose. Where the Landlord was aware of the use which the Tenant put the front room and where he not only allowed the Tenant to use the front room for a non-residential purpose and further intimated the Electricity Department and permitted the Tenant to have a separate meter, the consent of the Landlord could be safely inferred (vide Kamal Pasha Vs V.A.Tajuddin (1974 T.L.N.J. 180)). Pointing out Landladys no objection to change electricity supply from domestic tariff to commercial tariff, both Courts below have concurrently held that Landlady has failed to prove Different User. When there is no evidence that premises was given only for residential purpose, eviction cannot be ordered on the ground of Different User. That concurrent findings of Courts below cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference. .21. Acts of Waste:- Landladyhas alleged that Tenant has altered the utility of the building. Rent Controller has held that Tenant had committed acts of waste. In his evidence, R.W.1 – Tenants Father had admitted alterations had been made to the petition premises, but R.W.1 has stated that such alterations were made only for improving the premises. Act of Waste should not be misunderstood as an act done by the Lessee might be for improving the premises or otherwise. Act of waste should refer to such acts which are prejudicial to the interest of the Landlady which would lesser the utility value of the building and cause prejudice to the Landlady. Act of Waste should not be misunderstood as an act done by the Lessee might be for improving the premises or otherwise. Act of waste should refer to such acts which are prejudicial to the interest of the Landlady which would lesser the utility value of the building and cause prejudice to the Landlady. If the user is reasonable and if it is for a purpose for which the property is intended to be used, it cannot be said that Tenant has committed Acts of Waste. The question whether there is an Act of Waste or not is a mixed question of law and fact and as rightly observed by the Appellate Authority, on behalf of the Landlady, Commissioner was not taken to know the condition of the building on alleged acts of waste. The Landlady has not discharged the burden of proof showing acts of waste causing damage to the building and such damage materially impairs value and utility of the building. Order of Appellate Authority declining eviction on the ground of Acts of Waste does not suffer from any perversity calling for interference. 22. For the foregoing discussions, order of eviction on the grounds of Wilful Default, Owners occupation and Subletting is to be confirmed and on other two grounds viz., Different User and Acts of Waste, Landlady is not entitled to order of Eviction. 23. In the result, the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) in R.C.A.Nos.124 and 232 of 2005 ordering eviction on the grounds of Owners Occupation and Wilful Default is confirmed. Eviction is also ordered on the ground of Subletting. These Civil Revision Petitions are ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.17321 and 17322 of 2005 are closed.