Judgment :- 1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent/landlord filed application for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The case of the respondent/landlord was that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and as on the date of filing the application, he was in arrears of rent for more than Rs.16,800/= and therefore, the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted. It was further stated that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/= received under the lease deed was only a security deposit liable to be refunded on the handing over of possession by the tenant and that cannot be construed as advance and therefore, the tenant is not entitled to adjust the arrears of rent from that sum of Rs.1,00,000/=. 3. The revision petitioner/tenant contested the application stating that the landlord is having Rs.1,00,000/= as advance and as per the provisions of section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, he is not entitled to retain more than one month's rent and therefore, he is liable to refund the balance amount or he is liable to adjust the arrears of rent from that advance and if so calculated, there is no arrears and therefore, the application for eviction is not maintainable. 4. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction holding that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/= cannot be construed as advance and it can only be considered as deposit and that amount can be refunded only at the time of handing over of possession and as the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent, he is liable to be evicted. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that both the courts below erred in holding that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/= cannot be considered as advance and it can be considered only as security deposit and the tenant is not entitled to claim adjustment of arrears of rent from that amount and relied upon the judgment in K.NARASIMHA RAO v. T.M.NASIMUDDIN AHMED ( (1996) 3 SCC 45 ). He, therefore, contended that if the sum of Rs.1,00,000/= is taken as advance, there is no need for the tenant to pay the rent till the advance is adjusted and without appreciating the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, both the courts below have erroneously held that the tenant has committed wilful default and therefore, the orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that as per the judgment in ABDUL RAHIM v. STATE OF MADRAS ( 1962 (1) MLJ 272 ) when the amount is received under a lease as refundable on the happening of a stipulated event, it cannot be construed as an advance and the phrase "premium or other likesum" in section 7(2)(a) of the Rent Control Act should be understood ejusdem generis to the word premium and only a payment which has some resemblance to what is comprehended by the the word premium will come under the scope of the words "or other likesum" and as per the agreement, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/= is liable to be refunded on handing over of possession of the property and therefore, it cannot be considered as advance and therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. He also relied upon the judgment reported in KALIANNA GOUNDER (DIED) v. KALIANNA GOUNDER (1988 (2) LW 292) in support of his contention that the revision petitioner is barred under section 92 of the Evidence Act from letting any evidence contrary to the specific recital in the agreement of sale and it is not open to the revision petitioner to contend that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/= must be construed only as advance and it cannot be construed as security deposit. 7. Heard both side. According to me, the order of the courts below can be confirmed even assuming that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/= is construed as advance. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1996) 3 SCC 45 , when any amount is received as advance by the landlord in excess of one months rent, the landlord is liable to adjust the rent from that excess. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1996) 3 SCC 45 , when any amount is received as advance by the landlord in excess of one months rent, the landlord is liable to adjust the rent from that excess. Therefore, even assuming that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/= can be construed only as advance as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not paid the rent from 1.7.2003 till 31.1.2012. The monthly rent is Rs.1400/= and for the above period, viz., for 103 months, the revision petitioner has not paid the rent and arrears of rent for 103 months is Rs.1,44,200/=. After deducting one month rent from the advance of Rs.1,00,000/=, as contended by the revision petitioner, the landlord was having Rs.98,600/= and after adjusting the said sum of Rs.98,600/=, the revision petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.45,600/= towards arrears of rent. Further, it is admitted by the revision petitioner in evidence that he was aware that after adjusting the advance amount towards arrears of rent he is liable to pay future rent and despite the same, no attempt was made by the revision petitioner to pay the balance arrears of rent after the adjustment of advance as contended by him. Therefore, when the revision petitioner has committed default in payment of rent to the tune of Rs.45,600/=, he is liable to be evicted even after considering the amount of Rs.1,00,000/= as advance as per the contention of the revision petitioner. Hence, the order of the court below evicting the revision petitioner on the ground of wilful default is confirmed. 8. However, having regard to the judgment reported in 1962 (1) MLJ 272 , I am not deciding the issue whether the amount of Rs.1,00,000/= can be construed as security deposit or advance and even accepting the case of the revision petitioner that the amount can be construed as advance, the revision petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and the default committed by the revision petitioner is nothing but wilful. Hence, the revision is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 9. Hence, the revision is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 9. Time for vacating and handing over possession of the premises is two six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order on condition that the tenant files an undertaking affidavit within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the effect that he would vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.